If Everything is Somewhere, So Too is Nothing

There is a philosophical conundrum when it comes to the concept of nothing, especially in the English language because a noun is a person, place, or thing. Anything which has a name is a noun, and in the English language "nothing" is a noun. And we know that nouns exist because they are something. Now some might say that this is a mistake in our language, but actually I don't think it is. And I'd like to explain why.

First I'd like to ask you; where is nothing? Well, nothing is where something or everything isn't. But since nothing is a noun, and it is a thing, and it is a name for thing, albeit something that doesn't exist. It exists nevertheless in your mind and nothing is a concept. A concept is a thing, and this might be a circular argument for most people however, I would recommend that you read the book; "Our Undiscovered Universe - Introducing Null Physics - The Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality" by Terence Witt.

Why you ask, well because he shows why nothing has to exist, it has to be everywhere, and why it's always been, and always will be. And without nothing we wouldn't have anything, or everything for that matter (pun intended). He shows this scientifically and mathematically, and the book although not cheap, and quite a few pages, it does take you through the entire process of these thoughts.

Nothing Can't Exist - Without Nothing Being Something

In fact, if you think about it, nothing cannot possibly be part of the reality without nothing actually being something. Thus, this concept makes us wonder if there can be nothing anywhere, or maybe nothing is everywhere, that is to say everywhere in between. You know, there is a lot of space between each particle of matter, compared to its size. All that space in between could be said to be nothing, and so, one could also say that nothing is absolutely everywhere, all the time, without fail.

It is almost inconceivable for humans to grasp the concept of nothing, although they try. However maybe this terminology is actually incorrect, after all; nothing = no thing. However, if nothing is something, then no-thing is something too, as they are equal. Perhaps you have pondered the possibility on the philosophy of nothing the prior.

If you'd like to continue those discussions with yourself, send me an e-mail on what you came up with, I would be glad to discuss it with you. I'd also suggest that you read the book which I recommend above, and then please consider all this.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here

The Philosophy of Nothing - A Good Coffee Shop Conversation

Have you ever pondered the possibility and power of a concept? How about the concept of nothing, the concept that there is a place somewhere, which is unknown, and can never be known, were nothing actually exists. And in this place of nothing, where ever it might be, where ever this concept might exist, it would be something at that point in time and space.

Are you beginning to see the philosophical conundrum in this? After all, nothing would have to be somewhere, some unknown location, and were ever that place might be, it is. And if it is, that is to say if it's been nothing is, then it exists and therefore nothing exists. But how can nothing exist when we see everything that we see. Is this just a fundamental circular argument of a flawed language or concept?

No, I don't think it is. In fact, if you read the book "Our Undiscovered Universe-Introducing All Physics-the Science of Uniform and Unconditional Reality" by Terence Witt. The author, a physicist takes us through all the mathematical equations which proves that nothing or null, does exist, and it exists everywhere, and that nothing is part of something, therefore everything and nothing have always existed, because they have to.

1. Nothing is Nowhere Because It Is Something And Always Has Been
2. Behind Everything Must Be Nothing
3. If Nothing Were Possible, Then It Would Be Something After All
4. If Nothing Is Nowhere, Then It Must Be Everywhere, Where Else Could It Be?

Now then, if you like to engage your mind, and you have a friend who would like to do the same, then may I suggest you go down to Starbucks and order an extra large latte with extra shots, and ponder the four statements above. I think what you'll find is all four statements are true, and you cannot reason your way out of it. And yes it might be a philosophical conundrum, but it also appears to be the reality of the world we live in as well as mathematically proven from a physics standpoint.

If you've always believed in the concept of nothing, which is a hard concept to grasp in the first place, from a definitional standpoint; that is to say the Oxford Dictionary definition. Even in the Oxford Dictionary itself has a hard time grasping a relevant definition. Indeed, I'd like you to please consider all this and think on it, and if you have any comments, questions, or concerns I'd like you to send me an e-mail. Bring your mind, and your philosophy hat and let's talk.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here

The Nothing Concept

I haven't done this in a long while, it is called spontaneous prose; just write what is on your mind as it develops without-looking at the dictionary, or research books, or anything, throw all the garbage away and clear the mind, and just write. And the first thing that comes to mind is a conversation (don't look for anything scholarly here). Somebody read something on one of the internet magazines, told me "They have this concept, of something coming from nothing." And I nodded my head as if to say, "Okay," and I don't like making a question out of a statement so I just looked dumb at him, and he finally said "Is this possible?" As if I was Carl Sagan, or Will Durant, or Stephen Hawking. I mean, they think so. But Shakespeare wouldn't agree with them, he'd say: "Nothing comes from nothing," something like that. So I said, "Well, yes and no."

"Yes and no, what kind of answer is that, sir." He remarked, disappointed.

"First of all," I said to him, "when you talk to someone, and you ask him a question, as you are doing with me, know who you are talking to. I'm a Christian, so you know God is going to be involved, and with most philosophers, or scientists, or even psychologists, you know what you're going to get, the opposite. So if you want by belief, I can tell you, but first we start with God. If you don't believe in God, why would you want to listen to my answer?"

"I'm an agnostic," he said.

Well he filled in that quick. And went on to say, "I've read this and that, about what I'm talking about, and if I believe in God, than God created it, but how. If I believe in no God, then we got a Big Universe out there that always was, but that isn't any different than the God concept, I mean where did it come from."

So I told myself, he's at least open-minded about this, perhaps I'll not waste my time. So I said, "God created something out of nothing." And he seemed happy about that, but he wanted more, he gave me pert near the evil eye.

"Okay," he says, "show me his trick?"

I think that was a question, or statement-question, not sure which one, but I said, "I'll try (and I looked for an oversimplification-not necessary because it was for him, but because I get tired easily from talking too much, too long), it shouldn't be all that complex, we got a starting point anyhow, better than those three fellows I've mentioned before." And he gave me a chuckle.

"Okay," he said, "I'm listening," as if I'm trying to dig into my hat and pull out a rabbit.

"Make a circle," I told him, and he did, on a napkin of all things. "That is God." I said. And now he was silent, waiting for the elaborate, complex diagram which was going to make the big difference, but I didn't make a big diagram or complex one, I made a figure eight out of the circle, and asked: "What now do we have?"

"An eight," he says.

"Yes, and no," I said. "We have two circles, or the number eight. So we have two things. Perhaps we can call these two things, the Universe, being one, and life being two, and we can make two more circles out of the eight, I mean we can go on and on and on."

"I don't get it," he says to me.

"We just created something out of nothing, or something out of God, who, with a twist of his torso, became an eight, or double­-circle, or a hundred eights. He became more than what he was, or created out of what he was or is something that never was."

"Isn't that kind of cheating," he implied.

"Why," I asked, "God never inferred he created all you see without his endurance, and that is all it really is. The scientist will refer to gravity as the magical formula, not knowing what or where gravity came from, but it is a force; or they'll run to Darwin's Bible."

"So it's endurance that creates something?"

"Now we're starting to talk God's language..." I said.

View the original article here