People may think “Why is there even existence at all?” and I have an explanation.
There inherently will always be value to existence.
There is definitely “something” around us, and from this we know our universe has existential value.
If there were truly “nothing” in the universe, then “nothing” would obtain the value of “not having value” and would inversely become “something”.
Therefore, in the infinitely vast cosmos, there is always at least a point of singularity which immediately expands into the “nothingness” that surrounds it.
The value of “0” only exists as “non-value” when it is compared to anything non-zero.
“0” in the absence of “1” is a “1” in itself.
0 (or nothingness) is a false concept, a placeholder for the ABSENCE of something. it cannot be spoken about concretely like it were something, it is not. treating 0/nothingness as the same as 1/existence is logically, linguistically, conceptually and epistemically flawed. this flawed thinking is the source of all the misunderstandings about “nothingness” and “somethingness” in existence, along with the reason why people falsely assume that we need to find an answer to “why is there anything and not nothing?”
even this question itself is meaningless, not to speak of any “answer” we think we can come up with.
the question or the answers are not true or false, they are not even false…
So nothingness does not have the value of a lack of value?
In the complete absence of anything, nothingness would exist as a singularity. (Think of 1 as true, and 0 as false). If nothingness=true, then nothingness=1.
As of right now, nothingness=0, and “somethingness”=1. In the case where “somethingness”=0, then the equation is inverted and a new existence springs out of the “nothingness” of the last last universe.
Existence, is in essential aspects, a wave that oscillates to the polarities of “existence” and “non-existence”. Although from the frame of reference of non-existence, it is “existence”, and our “existence” is “non-existence”. It is all relativity
there is no such thing as a “value of a lack of value”-- a lack cannot be anything in itself but an absence.
this is what i mean about treating nonexistence or zero as something when it is not. its a fault of language due to its symbolic nature–we assume that all symbols may be equally manipulated as long as the rules do not change, and that we may disregard the content of the symbol itself. this is usually true, but in the case of zero or nonexistence, it is not true. the content of the symbol (i.e. the lack inherent therein) presupposes that all linguistic/logical manipulations of such symbols carry with them a false assumption, that the symbol REFERS to SOMETHING. most symbols (words) do refer to something; however, zero and nonexistence do not, they refer precisely to NOTHING, they are empty placeholders. treating them as if they refer to something specific or existent, even abstractly, is what causes the errors of metaphysics.
this is incorrect. hypothetically, if there were completely nothing, then there would be no thing. absence does not mystically gain some metaphysical standard of value or existence just because it coicides with conditions of compete absence. absence is meaningless in itself regardless of what context it appears in: its only meaning, as the concept zero or nonexistence or any other such symbol, is to be a placeholder indicating a lack of a thing. it doesnt matter its context, it will never magically manifest into “something”.
fundamentally, in reality itself, nothing is nonexistent: there are no zeroes. everything exists, and anything which does not exist, does not exist. i know it seems hard to grasp, but its really quite simple. the concept of zero and of nonexistence is a human construct, a byproduct of the operative needs of language and of symbolic logical manipulation. nothing more. zero and nonexistence are NOT metaphysical or “real” things in any sense whatsoever.
In a near vacuum, it is seen that matter will spontaneously come into existence, then disappear shortly there after. Where did the matter come from? The matter came from the instability of background radiation. If energy (radiation) does not have mass itself, then how is it possible for mass to be created from non-mass?
nice quotes. i would respond by pointing out that while he said that the total energy of the universe is “zero”, this does not mean that there is NO energy in total. it is zero with respect to a “balancing” of “positive and negative” energies. but each of these are still energy. they may interact in such a way that they cancel in effects, but in essence, a positive unit of energy and a negative unit of energy can exist and there is still energy existing. the concept of “zero” as hawking is using it isnt meaning that there is “nothing”, it is meaning that everything is a mirror or reflection of something else, every plus has a minus and every thing may be cancelled out in its effects or its forces/forms by another thing.
as for mass itself, likely higgs bosons are what allows matter to take on mass-like qualities, although physics still doesnt know why this is. mass is likely an illusion of sorts, like a “ghost interacting with a ghost”, wherein each ghost sees the other as solid and cannot pass through it, yet we can pass through them. mass may be similar, it may be that certain vibrational levels of the quantum wavefields set up energy patterns which sometimes coicide with others, and sometimes do not. in the case that they do coincide, they would be unable to “pass through” the other due to occupying the same frequency level and would interact as solids, hence with “mass”; in the other case, if their wavefield frequencies are different enough, the waveforms and crests/valleys of the frequency energy would not overlap, and the matters would be able to “pass through” each other and in effect be massless with relation to the other.
mass is a question for physicists. as for matter itself, we know there is no such thing as a complete vaccuum. at any point in existence, no matter how devoid of anything, there exists the possibility that matter may result in that location, may coalesce or spring up from the underlying energy fields of quantum probabilities. when we see matter “popping into” existence, it is not being “created” spontaneously; in reality it is not being created at all. it represents the localizing of the disperse EM field energy into a small and more-definable region. the energy was there before the particle came into being, it was just diffuse and occupying many locations at once. when the particle appears, that matter is resultant of this same amount of energy condensing into a smaller region of spacetime, and thus “standing out” against the background more predominantly. it also represents a condensing and focusing of the energetic forces which interact at the EM levels, and because of this focusing of force-interactions, particles are seen as more “fundamental” or real than their spread-out wavefield counterparts. we can see and measure the effects of particle forces much better because the same amount of potential force is restricted into a smaller region, creating greater density of force and energy. perhaps in some way this is what accounts for mass. then again, perhaps not. im not a physicist.
in the end, however, none of this changes what we were talking about. nothingness does not exist-- there are no zeroes. hawking speaks of zeroes of effects, one positive and one negative cancelling each other’s effects or forces of extension… but he is not speaking about NOTHINGNESS in a fundamental or metaphysical way. this is clear when we realise that hawking and other physicists understand that there is literally NO PLACE in the universe where there is NOTHING. nothing as no thing does not exist (when you think about it, this is just a truism). matter is not created from nothing, because there is no nothing. this is why the principles i indicated previously still stand. matter which is “created” from background radiation already existed (thermodynamics) and thus is not truly “created” at all (its FORM of expression is new, but the underlying energy which this form gives expression to was always there to begin with, and continues to be there after the form itself changes and vanishes)… mass is likely one of these forms of energy. it can come and go, change, create and vanish, but in the end the underlying matter energy which mass gives indication of remains always-present and fundamentally unchanged in its essence.
I guess what I am trying to say is that “nothingness” can never exist, because “somethingness” is always occupying potential nothingness.
Imagine two particles (A and B) that are entangled in such a state that when the energy level of point A becomes larger, the energy level of point B becomes smaller. Before point B can “cease to exist”, the application of whichever force increasing the energy of point A will become inverted, causing point A to decrease in energy level while point B increases in energy level. In this effect, it is a wave, with point A being the top crest and point B being the bottom crest.
i dont really understand this, could you elaborate? why would the energy of point A become inverted due to point B dissolving and ceasing to exist in its particle-state?
he’s trying to say there is a conservation of energy in the entity of existence- wich i do not believe- i believe that the overall energy of existence will eventually go back to its original place or simply cease to exist. i think you also mentioned a vaccuum or a “near- vaccuum” lol- a vaccuum can never exist!- no matter what scientists say- they must realize with common sense that a vaccuum itself is made of something -space itself is made of something as well as existence itself- which means everythiing you see is something and something cannot come from something originally- it can only come from non existence- existence is movement- that means nothingness would be non-movement- it could exists very easily but we would not be able to interact with it (see it, touch it)- it would be stronger than the forces of existence which is again movement and you would not be able to apply time to it- but what’s even more fascinating about nothing once you really start imagining is that the only reason you would call it nothing is because we(existence) could never interact with nothing as existence which tells us something very important- anything composed of existence could never use existence such as intelligence or what i call physical love to understand the idea of nothing- but if i could make it as simple as possible i would say “once something exists there can never be an idea of nothingness in an entity of something’s mind.” basically it’s impossible for us to imagine unless you understand already that it’s impossible to imagine and then study “that”. -study the impossibility itself. another way to look at it is by saying nothing does not equal something but if something tries to define nothing it will define it with something because something can only create something so the idea of nothing itself is still something so you may better understand that existence is something and nothing would not need existence to be something in fact, it would not have existence at all and that is why it would be nothing to us but it is not true in the sense of itself-
No, nothing would still be nothing. It is not the abscene of something else, that would make it something. The abscene of something. Which is something and therefore not nothing.
