vaxx:


Your question is simply answered. I. Said nothing don't exist as it is even wrong to used that word scientifically.

The scope and boundary of science has never been designated as “everything . So why lumping what does not belong to human to human. Human will certainly not have amswer to everything but our science will grow to the lenght that he would provide sufficient information that will be so much compelling to what can be empirically deduced.

Any questions firmly within the realm of science will be adequately dealt with in the future , if past experience is of any use, there is no question to which the answer will not be discoverable through hard work and persistence.
And as existence continue, more question will be revealed and so shall it be.

Speaking about the plane of existence that has no mathemathicalr dimension. You may need to justify this answer. No ones have travelled over the universe to come up with this theory but if you do. You may need to justify it. Or perharps there is a model you used to come with this conclusion. Share it.

It is simple!!!!
If it is dimensional,it means there are limits,and if there are limits,it means there is 'nothing' outside those limits/boundaries!!!!
So if you disagree with me,you are indirectly saying there is a 'Plane of Inexistence' which is impossible!!!!

budaatum:

On your forum? Make me please! And continue to refuse to see your own absurdity, why don't you!

How does hitting my head against the wall to see if something exists compare to the statement I made on the impossibility of expressing infinity with numbers?
You are only proving how good you are at criticizing stupidly!!!!

budaatum:

No one is thinking of discovering 'everything'"! I can't even discover everything in my own home, not to talk of on my street!

Not everyone has so much time to waste! A "little bit of something" satisfies many of us.

If 'everything' exists somewhere, 'nothing' must also exist elsewhere.

HellVictorinho:

How does hitting my head against the wall to see if something exists compare to the statement I made on the impossibility of expressing infinity with numbers?
You are only proving how good you are at criticizing stupidly!!!!

But one can very easily express infinity with numbers. You just keep adding 1 to Infinity and keep going! Its easier to count 1, 2, 3, however. That's how easy it is to criticise stupidity.

Or is the definition of Infinity (symbol: ∞) no longer, "a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number"?

HellVictorinho:


If 'everything' exists somewhere, 'nothing' must also exist elsewhere.

I don't see how that last statement follows from your first statement. Wouldn't it be much truer to claim "nothing must also exist nowhere"? Explain please.

Also explain the 'everything' that exists somewhere. I'm sure you can't possibly mean that there's a place I could go and 'everything' would be there. Or do you?

HellVictorinho:

It is simple!!!!
If it is dimensional,it means there are limits,and if there are limits,it means there is 'nothing' outside those limits/boundaries!!!!
So if you disagree with me,you are indirectly saying there is a 'Plane of Inexistence' which is impossible!!!!

If you have been to physics class room. You will know ballon also has the same discription there. Have you ask yourself how is the ballon measured? . The gas , the air in it is what is measured. So say is the universe which is spherical like the shape of the ballon. What you measure is the totality of what you find the universe.so to come up with such conclusion. Have you measure all the totality of the universe?

HellVictorinho:


If 'everything' exists somewhere, 'nothing' must also exist elsewhere.

The totality of existence is yet unknown. So saying this is not a truth statement.

vaxx:

If you have been to physics class room. You will know ballon also has the same discription there. Have you ask yourself how is the ballon measured? . The gas , the air in it is what is measured. So say is the universe which is spherical like the shape of the ballon. What you measure is the totality of what you find the universe.so to come up with such conclusion. Have you measure all the totality of the universe?

If the Universe is the entirety of Existence, it means there is nothing outside it.
But you have agreed with me on the fact that you can't find 'Nothing' anywhere.

HellVictorinho:

If the Universe is the entirety of Existence, it means there is nothing outside it.
But you have agreed with me on the fact that you can't find 'Nothing' anywhere.

i am not agreeing with you, i am declaring that nothingness scientifically don't exist.i also think you’re playing with words. Nothingness is just a concept. Zero is not nothing, and outer space isn’t absolutely empty either. Reality is the sum total of everything that did exist, does exist, and will exist. Reality is All. And if you dont believe in that, you may decide not to eat for days. And see what will be the effect.

Note.. Pls don't mention vaxx when reality hit you.

budaatum:

I don't see how that last statement follows from your first statement. Wouldn't it be much truer to claim "nothing must also exist nowhere"? Explain please.

Also explain the 'everything' that exists somewhere. I'm sure you can't possibly mean that there's a place I could go and 'everything' would be there. Or do you?

First,if 'Nothing' exists nowhere,it means you can always find something,somewhere.
The 'Everything' I'm talking about is the one you assumed to exist.
Imagine this:If I tell you that all my properties are in a box(they could be anything), wouldn't it be illogical for you to ask me if I have anything left that is not in the box?

vaxx:
i am not agreeing eith you, i am declaring that nothingness scientifically dont exist. think i also think you’re playing with words. Nothingness is just a concept. Zero is not nothing, and outer space isn’t absolutely empty either. Reality is the sum total of everything that did exist, does exist, and will exist. Reality is All. And if you dont believe in that, you may decide not to eat for days. And see what will be the effect.

Note.. Pls don't mention vaxx when reality hit you.

Goodness!!!! You still agree with me.
What makes you think I didn't have outer space in mind?
I am even going further but I haven't forgotten where I am coming from.
There is No Nothingness means there are no specific periods for the Forms of Existence to occur.
The Big Bang wasn't caused by any intelligence.
But it wasn't accidental either.
It occurred at ANYTIME and those things that exploded were already in Existence before exploding.
'Nothing' cannot explode.

vaxx:
The totality of existence is yet unknown. So saying this is not a truth statement.

The totality of existence doesn't exist.
But the 'Totality of Possibilities' is a philosophical description of the coexistence of eventful possibilities/chances.

HellVictorinho:

Goodness!!!! You still agree with me.
What makes you think I didn't have outer space in mind?
I am even going further but I haven't forgotten where I am coming from.
There is No Nothingness means there are no specific periods for the Forms of Existence to occur.
The Big Bang wasn't caused by any intelligence.
But it wasn't accidental either.
It occurred at ANYTIME and those things that exploded were already in Existence before exploding.
'Nothing' cannot explode.

The more i try separating this confusion, the more you are adding to it.

Accident is rather an anthropic concept which has nothing to do with the nature behavior and its evolution. It is quite possible that big bangs are common events in the multiverse( that is to say if muiltiverse hypothesis is established) within which it is the way for universes to proliferate.

HellVictorinho:

First,if 'Nothing' exists nowhere,it means you can always find something,somewhere.
The 'Everything' I'm talking about is the one you assumed to exist.
Imagine this:If I tell you that all my properties are in a box(they could be anything), wouldn't it be illogical for you to ask me if I have anything left that is not in the box?

I don't think so. I'd just be asking a question, a logical one at that. After all, you may have something that may not be part of "all your properties", though I'm more likely to ask what your properties that are in a box particularly are, first.

Would it be improper for me to ask, rather than ignorantly assume what you mean, or just to clarify that I understand what you might possibly mean by "all your properties are in a box"?

I don't agree that 'Nothing' exists nowhere", means "one can always find something, somewhere". I may not search well enough and assume something exists where nothing exists, or that nothing exists just because I perceived nothing with my faulty abilities to perceive. And that apart from the fact that I'd have to first define what is meant by "nothing", "nowhere", "exists" and "somewhere", before I even begin searching!

HellVictorinho:

The totality of existence doesn't exist.
But the 'Totality of Possibilities' is a philosophical description of the coexistence of eventful possibilities/chances.

The totality of everything that exist is called the universe or hypothetically the muiltiverse.

vaxx:
The more i try separating this confusion, the more you are adding to it.

Accident is rather an anthropic concept which has nothing to do with the nature behavior and its evolution. It is quite possible that big bangs are common events in the multiverse( that is to if muiltiverse hypothesis is established) within which it is the way for universes to proliferate.

First,I am not the brain behind 'the accident' theory.
It is one of those misinformations I never found logical.
But some people still use the word "accident' erroneously and I decided to indicate the falsity of the common premise.
Big Bangs are just part of the 'Forming of Existence'.

budaatum:

I don't think so. I'd just be asking a question, a logical one at that. After all, you may have something that may not be part of "all your properties", though I'm more likely to ask what your properties that are in a box particularly are, first.

Would it be improper for me to ask, rather than ignorantly assume what you mean, or just to clarify that I understand what you might possibly mean by "all your properties are in a box"?

I don't agree that 'Nothing' exists nowhere", means "one can always find something, somewhere". I may not search well enough and assume something exists where nothing exists, or that nothing exists just because I perceived nothing with my faulty abilities to perceive. And that apart from the fact that I'd have to first define what is meant by "nothing", "nowhere", "exists" and "somewhere", before I even begin searching!

Why are you bringing up the possibility of miscommunication/human limitations?
I know all that too.
But we can be certain of certain things, right?
Is oxygen not a chemical element ?

HellVictorinho:

First,I am not the brain behind 'the accident' theory.
It is one of those misinformations I never found logical.
But some people still use the word "accident' erroneously and I decided to indicate the falsity of the common premise.
Big Bangs are just part of the 'Forming of Existence'.

That is why we are here to share knolwedge. Nothing accidental about a process that was spark by another process.

HellVictorinho:

Why are you bringing up the possibility of miscommunication/human limitations?
I know all that too.
But we can be certain of certain things, right?
Is oxygen not a chemical element ?

Because it is relevant! And yes, to the best of my knowledge, Oxygen is a chemical element.

vaxx:
The totality of everything that exist is called the universe or hypothetically the muiltiverse.

So,the universe had to become the multiverse.
I know.
But you once typed something like 'Nothingness is scientifically impossible'.
Now,I also know that.
And I also know that 'Nothingness' can't exist anywhere at anytime and this makes it impossible for 'Existence' to be compared to a ballon.
Matter(solid,liquid, gas) makes up the Universe/Multiverse.
So you can't compare that to a ballon whose dimensions where determined in some people's heads before it was made artificially.

budaatum:

Because it is relevant! And yes, to the best of my knowledge, Oxygen is a chemical element.

You might call it a substance.
In fact, a gas.
Sorry,it must be a molecule in H2O!!!

HellVictorinho:

You might call it a substance.
In fact, a gas.
Sorry,it must be a molecule in H2O!!!

Yes, it could be all of those things, including it being an element with atomic number 8. A member of the chalcogen group on the periodic table, a highly reactive nonmetal, and an oxidizing agent that readily forms oxides with most elements as well as with other compounds, or by mass the third-most abundant element in the universe, that at standard temperature and pressure two atoms of it bind to form dioxygen, and that it is a colorless and odorless diatomic gas with the formula O. Now imagine if I see no H₂O and claimed there was therefore no Oxygen!

What's your point?

HellVictorinho:

So,the universe had to become the multiverse.
I know.
But you once typed something like 'Nothingness is scientifically impossible'.
Now,I also know that.
And I also know that 'Nothingness' can't exist anywhere at anytime and this makes it impossible for 'Existence' to be compared to a ballon.
Matter(solid,liquid, gas) makes up the Universe/Multiverse.
So you can't compare that to a ballon whose dimensions where determined in some people's heads before it was made artificially.

Yes, i do type nothingness does not exist scientifically . And the use of that statement does not make any sense..if hypothetical muiltiverse is discover today, the measure will be what is within the dimension of the verses.

But as at now it may. It could. We don't know because we couldn't verify with empirical data. It's beyond observation

vaxx:
Yes, i do type nothingness does not exist scientifically . And the use of that statement does not make any sense..if hypothetical muiltiverse is discover today, the measure will be what is within the dimension of the verses.

But as at now it may. It could. We don't know because we couldn't verify with empirical data. It's beyond observation

Now it's the verses,I get it.
But,can you measure water if it is not in a container?

HellVictorinho:

Now it's the verses,I get it.
But,can you measure water if it is not in a container?

it depends, be specific , the extent of the water? The cooking water, running water , ocean, sea or what?

In all my years on Nl, I have never seen so much nonsense on a single thread

gensteejay:
In all my years on Nl, I have never seen so much nonsense on a single thread

Quantum Physics is also nonsense to some people.
I bet you think Einstein never received insults/bashing.

HellVictorinho:

Quantum Physics is also nonsense to some people.
I bet you think Einstein never received insults/bashing.

You're comparing this balderdash with Quantum Physics. Very funny.

Every science-savvy person knows the mathematical formulations for concepts in Quantum Physics, and these formulations show consistency mathematically.

What is the mathematical basis for all your empty assertions on this thread?

gensteejay:

You're comparing this balderdash with Quantum Physics. Very funny.

Every science-savvy person knows the mathematical formulations for concepts in Quantum Physics, and these formulations show consistency mathematically.

What is the mathematical basis for all your empty assertions on this thread?

Maths is the science of numbers.
And I made emphasis on Infinity.
Think about that.

budaatum:

But one can very easily express infinity with numbers. You just keep adding 1 to Infinity and keep going! Its easier to count 1, 2, 3, however. That's how easy it is to criticise stupidity.

Or is the definition of Infinity (symbol: ∞) no longer, "a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number"?

Give me the numbers,not the symbol.

HellVictorinho:

Maths is the science of numbers.
And I made emphasis on Infinity.
Think about that.

Lol. Tripe

vaxx:
it depends, be specific , the extent of the water? The cooking water, running water , ocean, sea or what?

If there are balls,
And these balls could fit into a container,
Shouldn't the container hold all the balls leaving nothing outside it?