But in the simplest explanation: potential is the capacity to act, without actually acting. Like a pressure to exert action. — Benj96

Yes, that's what i was thinking; a kind of fundamental pressure, but i'm trying to understand the nature of that pressure. It's hard to understand something when you can't stand under it. Starting from absolute nothing; how does nothing exert pressure? Why does nothing have pressure? What is it about the structure of the "fundamental nothing" that allows for creative "pressure"?

Not asking you, just trying to formulate the right question to get the right answer, or at least a helpful answer. My project is to understand, starting from absolute nothingness what the necessary conditions need to be present to give rise to a universe like ours. How or why does this pressure create space (dimensions: three of them at least). There is energy in pressure; where did it come from, or how can it manifest from nothing? I know the common response to these types of questions is to say that it's some kind of brute fact with no explanation, but something inside me tells me there is a way to explain it. I feel it.

The analog of pressure in an electrical context is 'voltage'. Maybe some insight can be gleaned from this comparison. The same functional patterns in nature repeat over all scales but in more complex forms at higher scales. They may not look the same, but they provide the same basic functions necessary for the evolutionary process.

I think the answer may lie within the very structure of logic itself, specifically the NOT logical unitary operator. The two possible conditions in a NOT operator is 1 and 0, energy (or matter) and space respectively. The way that a binary number system works i think is an emergence from this NOT operator function of the universe. I know it sounds strange to think of it in this way, but i don't see an alternative really, nothing else can take 0 (nothing) and turn it into 1 (something).

The structure of zero is not empty, it only appears that way because it contains all opposites within it such as (-1 + 1) = (0) = (-1 + 1). Zero contains at least two opposite infinities, and so can produce an infinite amount of energy as long as it is extracted in opposite pairs which is why we have matter and antimatter pairs popping out of seemingly nothing.

Starting from absolute nothing; how does nothing exert pressure? Why does nothing have pressure? What is it about the structure of the "fundamental nothing" that allows for creative "pressure"? — punos

Well as I said earlier it's not nothing. As true nothing would have no characteristics/properties. As any such properties or characteristics would be existants, qualities of soemthingness.

Nothing cannot create existants. Only existants can create existants. Potential has properties. Therefore it is a contender for a primary existant. If it gives rise to time, it is an existant preceding time, with the property of giving rise to time.

absolute nothingness — punos

Well absolute nothingness has no opposite. Nothing could exist if true nothingness was ever possible. As if anything exists, then true nothingness is impossible as it is relative to something that exists.

True nothingness is a state where nothing exists and nothing ever will exist. But the fact that we exist proves that true nothingness is not within the realm of possibility of the universe.

Which is obvious because "possibility" pertains to the potential for existants.

"The impossible is" nothing", the possible is "something". "

Well as I said earlier it's not nothing. As true nothing would have no characteristics/properties. As those are qualities of somethingness. — Benj96

That is precisely what i think, it has structure, but...

Nothing cannot create existants. Only existants can create existants. — Benj96

That doesn't seem mysterious to you? that only an existant can create an existant. Where did the first existent come from or come about that creates other existants. We can say that it has always existed, but if so why?

Also if let's say 1 existant exists already and lets say that it has a mass unit of 1, when it creates another existant now there is a mass of 2 in the universe. Where did the mass or energy come from to create the next existant?

It seems like it still has to come from "nothing".

I do find it peculiar, I dont think it's wrong despite that. "Where did it come from? " is a natural bias of existant things following cause and effect and assuming there must have been a first and before that nothing.

But there's nothing written in the manual that says there had to be a pure nothingness at any stage in the universe.

Because potential is timeless - as in outside the purview of its offspring - time, it doesn't have to abide by cause and effect. Cause and effect are products of linear chronology, ie the passage of time.

If time doesn't exist for a property like potential, then it doesn't require a prior cause/ reason to exist.

Potential would not be that "potent" if it hinged its properties on a preceding absolute nothingness - which could never confer any such property (a thing) which it doesn't have ("no-thing".. Nothing.)

Potential for energy is timeless. So it doesn't require time to create it. It was always there and always will be. Just as its product - energy, is also always conserved and indestructible: it can only be potential energy (timeless) or energy (during time). In neither case is it destroyed. Just transformed.

A good yardstick for whether aliens will see the world in the same way as we do is mathematics (the independent discovery of pythagoras' theorem by multiple isolated cultures). Carlo Rovelli, however, begs to differ.

Also if let's say 1 existant exists already and lets say that it has a mass unit of 1, when it creates another existant now there is a mass of 2 in the universe. Where did the mass or energy come from to create the next existant? — punos

Well potential has no mass. As mass requires time (e=mc2, speed is involved here and that requires time and distance).

Potential is massless. Then it creates or better "is converted into" mass when it also converted to energy and time. The dynamic between energy and time is what creates mass. As mass is created, it consumes large amounts of energy in a stable solid form. Thus the total potential of the universe decreases. To move that mass further decreases the potential of the universe.

Potential thus is not infinite. An infinite amount of mass or energy can never arise. The universe is quantised. There are limits. And thats why we have stable physical constants in physics. If the energy and mass of the universe kept increasing, the physics constants would also have to change.

The universe is just a conversion between energy, time, space and matter. They're all co-dependent and that's why e=mc2 has such incredible importance as it describes this relationship in a simply mathematical format.

Think about it, can you have an "equation" or an "equivalence" if the entire equation was not finite/limited?

If all components increased/decrease by the same degree then the equation stands, if they don't increase equally then there is imbalance and thus it's not an equation.

If it was magically increasing in amount, equations would not work. As there would be an innate imbalance as things spontaneously come into existence out of pure nothingness, throwing either side of an equation into unrectifiable dissonance.

Suddenly 8 apples (energy) wouldn't equal 16 half apples (mass) by a function of time and distance and the qualitative difference (probability/potential for conversion between the two states).

Well potential has no mass. As mass requires time (e=mc2, speed is involved here and that requires time and distance). — Benj96

Right but that's after potential creates time and space. Why time and why space, is there a logic as to why space and time? Before there is time there needs to be space, since it seems that time is a function of space, according to your model. I think it would help to look at Einsteins equation in the form of (m = e / c^2) than (e = mc^2), since energy comes first then mass.

Potential is massless. Then it creates mass when it also creates energy and time. The dynamic between energy and time is what creates mass. As mass is created, it consumes large amounts of energy. Thus the total potential of the universe decreases. To move that mass further decreases the potential of the universe. — Benj96

But that's already above the level i'm interested in, we know a good deal of that science, but what i'm trying to think about is at the level of potential only, not what it does but why or how it is that it is there in the first place.

Potential is thus is not infinite. An infinite amount of mass or energy can never arise. The universe is quantised. There are limits. And thats why we have stable physical constants in physics. If the energy and mass of the universe kept increasing, the physics constants would also have to change. — Benj96

It may be possible to keep the constants steady if when creating energy or mass space is created as well in proportion. The fundamental constants may simply be due to certain ratios in the universe such the ratio between energy and space. I think that when a quantum limit is exceed with energy a quantum tunneling effect creates space to accommodate it. Similar to how in binary if you have a 1 and add 1 to it the result is 10 (2 in binary). a new space (a new place holder) was created and the value 1 is 'displaced' causing space to essentially expand (cosmic inflation).

Think about it, can you have an "equation" or an "equivalence" if the entire equation was not finite/limited? — Benj96

No of course not, but that's not what i'm saying. Infinity can not be actualized.

Something i'm thinking about. Binary is the simplest number system, which is what i would expect at the simplest lowest level of the universe.

look at this pattern: ratio and probability

0 = space
1 = energy (quanta, value, magnitude)
-------------------------------------------------
0 = 0/1 = 0
1 = 1/1 = 1

10 = 1/2 = 0.5
11 = 2/2 = 1

100 = 1/3 = 0.33
101 = 2/3 = 0.6667
110 = 2/3 = 0.6667
111 = 3/3 = 1

1000 = 1/4 = 0.25
1001 = 2/4 = 0.5
1010 = 2/4 = 0.5
1011 = 3/4 = 0.75
1100 = 2/4 = 0.5
1101 = 3/4 = 0.75
1110 = 3/4 = 0.75
1111 = 4/4 = 1

A good yardstick for whether aliens will see the world in the same way as we do is mathematics (discovery of e.g. the independent discovery of pythagoras' theorem by multiple isolated cultures). — Agent Smith

I agree, mathematics and logic is most fundamental, so naturally. :up:

Leibniz and Newton both hit upon the idea known to us as calculus without sharing notes. This is convergence at its best. In nonmathematical domains, divergence is the norm.

So when heat death occurs - when energy drops to zero, time effectively stops (all motion), which is analogous to actualised energy reverting back to potential (as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only change from one form to another). Potential energy woukd be the start state and the eventual return end state dictated by this fundamental law. — Benj96

This is a misunderstanding of entropy and theory of heat death of the universe.

Heat death is not energy dropping to zero. There will be just the same energy in a heat death universe as in the current universe. Heat death is the potential dropping to zero (or free energy dropping to zero).

There will be just the same amount of energy, but that energy will have no potential to do work ever again. So it is exactly the opposite of what you describe.

Of course there is the caveat this is a theory, we don't know conclusively if the universe will end up with heat death.

Well absolute nothingness has no opposite. — Benj96

The opposite of "absolute nothingness" (0) is "absolute somethingness" (1). Between 0 and 1 there is infinity.

Leibniz and Newton both hit upon the idea known to us as calculus without sharing notes. This is convergence at its best. In nonmathematical domains, divergence is the norm. — Agent Smith

Solve et Coagula.

Solve et Coagula — punos

:chin:

:chin: — Agent Smith

:zip:

:lol:

Infinity can not be actualized. — punos

Pseudoinfinity? Boundless but finite?

The structure of zero is not empty, it only appears that way because it contains all opposites within it such as (-1 + 1) = (0) = (-1 + 1) — punos

:up:

Pseudoinfinity? Boundless but finite? — Agent Smith

You could say it like that.

You could say it like that — punos

:up:

The opposite of "absolute nothingness" (0) is "absolute somethingness" (1). Between 0 and 1 there is infinity.
7h — punos

That's a good point. So if we know absolute somethingness exists 1, then absolute nothingness 0 would be infinitely away/forever intangible. If we as existants can never prove absolute nothingness as we exist and existant things cannot ever encounter total non existence, nor can it ever be proven because "proof" is a criterion based on existence itself, does it really exist outside the realms of theory/imagination?

I wouldn't fully rely on theoreticals/mathematics as a basis for how reality works. At most I would say maths can be applied to things that exist. Nothingness is outside that set.

True nothingness for me would have to be eternal and outright and never have at any point at which something existed to qualify as truly nothing at all.
We cannot prove infinities outside of maths. As in practically speaking we are not sure if they apply to the real world.

Pseudoinfinity? Boundless but finite? — Agent Smith

I would say infinite in "change" or qualitatively infinite, but quantitatively finite. Energy has an infinite capacity to transform, assume new states, as it cannot be created nor destroyed, but energy itself is quantized as is shown with light (quanta).

Just as a cycle may be infinite in the number of revolutions it can do, but finite in magnitude.

:ok:

This is a misunderstanding of entropy and theory of heat death of the universe.

Heat death is not energy dropping to zero. There will be just the same energy in a heat death universe as in the current universe. Heat death is the potential dropping to zero (or free energy dropping to zero). — PhilosophyRunner

I already clarified the same thing earlier, this was a simplification/analogy based on punos and my previous conversation. I was trying to explain the difference between potential energy and actualised energy (free energy) and the conversion between them.

I also agree that energy cannot ever be destroyed and the amount will remain the same. But it merely appears to disappear when it is not free (potential), when it is converted back to that original state.

I was saying potential energy does not require time as its not free to act and was suggesting it as the primary existant. And that true nothingness is actually a fallacy.

:up:

So if we know absolute somethingness exists 1, then absolute nothingness 0 would be infinitely away/forever intangible. If we as existants can never prove absolute nothingness as we exist and existant things cannot ever encounter total non existence, nor can it ever be proven because "proof" is a criterion based on existence itself, does it really exist outside the realms of theory/imagination? — Benj96

Absolute nothingness is a transcendent concept in which everything and nothing is latent within. Absolute nothingness is not infinitely away, but the ground on which existence stands. We are in it and not outside it (vice versa), nothing is outside nothing. If nothingness was a blanket then somethingness and nothingness are just two sides of the same blanket, one could not be without the other. Nothingness can be thought of as the inactive form of energy, while something is the active form of energy. All that happens is that some parts are inverted (NOT operator).

The difficulty comes because we are used to using logic to analyze everything, but we have a hard time in thinking about logic from it's own perspective. Logic is a non physical thing, but yet we depend on logic with no exception to prove things physically and empirically. We utilize the physical and the imperial as scaffolding to hold our ideas while at the same time it is logic at it's foundation. We already believe in logic so why not make it the absolute basis for everything instead of by physical proxy.

I wouldn't fully rely on theoreticals/mathematics as a basis for how reality works. At most I would say maths can be applied to things that exist. Nothingness is outside that set. — Benj96

If you don't rely on theory and mathematics and logic then what? What else do you have? All sets are either manifest or unmanifest within nothingness not outside it. It would be arbitrary to place it outside, and besides there is no outside to nothingness except more nothingness.

We cannot prove infinities outside of maths. As in practically speaking we are not sure if they apply to the real world. — Benj96

Infinity is a property of nothingness and it's inverse finiteness is a property of somethingness.

The paradigm i am working under is that the universe is not really a physical place as we conceive it, what it really is, is an information system, with entities made of information perceiving information, and that's why things seem so real and solid to us. What we call physics is actually computation.

As long as we depend on the purely imperical we will never get to the bottom of things. People have already given up stating that it is impossible or it doesn't make sense because it's not how i already think about things.

I think wheel theory can help turn the wheels a little in the light of what i'm trying to say, as well as modular arithmetic with an equivalence set of 0 and 1. The video helps illustrate what i mean by the infinity of zero, and how it is the potential for everything that can be.

Division by Zero:


The concept of the unitary logical NOT operator i've been harping about is present in wheel theory as an involution function.