N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..
...

Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...


"Matter exists on the motion created by
Nothingness drawing Matter back into
the Nothingness from whence it came."

I am not qualified for any debate about
physics, and so I'm just thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.

Time is a human construct.


You used the word "motion". Please define this word, without
using either "space" or "time".

The universe does not need human definitions in order to run.

Mary Hogan wrote:


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..
...

Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

"Matter exists on the motion created by
Nothingness drawing Matter back into
the Nothingness from whence it came."


I am not qualified for any debate about
physics, and so I'm just thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.


Time is a human construct.


You used the word "motion". Please define this word, without using
either "space" or "time".

David A. Smith



You can't define motion without space or time. I think Rabbi Wolfson
had a great class about this, which I listened to over and over, and I
guess I wasn't ready for it.

The universe runs without the need of human definitions.

wrote:

On Feb 26, 6:43 pm, "Mary Hogan" wrote:

I haven't studied this Ramban since 2004, Roy. There is so little time in
this life, and so much beauty to tap into.


So much fool's gold and so little discernment of what is true and what
is false.

The essential point here is that there is a tension between the
objective view of science and the subjective view of religion. This
reflects a real conflict between G-d and Hyle, or matter personified.
There are real conflicts in the Godhead, between the sexual polarities
of G-d and between the whole idea of G-d vs. matter. These conflicts
drove HaShem to madness, and the old testament is the record of His
struggle with that madness. The new testament aims at a better
resolution of the opposites, in part by accepting the notion of a
fully Androgynous G-D.

Fine sermon on a popular myth.

Mary Hogan wrote:

I haven't studied this Ramban since 2004, Roy. There is so little time
in this life, and so much beauty to tap into.

Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakaneh, Sefer HaBahir.

Isn't it high time you stopped studying gnostic idolatry?

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..
...

Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...


"Matter exists on the motion created by
Nothingness drawing Matter back into
the Nothingness from whence it came."

I am not qualified for any debate about
physics, and so I'm just thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.

Time is a human construct.


You used the word "motion". Please define this
word, without using either "space" or "time".

The universe does not need human definitions in
order to run.

You post to a newsgroup, as if this was news. This requires
communication, an effort on the part of two parties. You
challeged "Mary Hogan" to give reason to invoke "time", as if
that was some mysterious error on the part of Mankind.

Now define "motion", and "run" without invoking "time" or
"space". Please don't hide under Buddhist mysticism this early.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:


Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
om...
...


Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...



"Matter exists on the motion created by
Nothingness drawing Matter back into
the Nothingness from whence it came."

I am not qualified for any debate about
physics, and so I'm just thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.

Time is a human construct.


You used the word "motion". Please define this
word, without using either "space" or "time".

The universe does not need human definitions in
order to run.


You post to a newsgroup, as if this was news. This requires
communication, an effort on the part of two parties. You
challeged "Mary Hogan" to give reason to invoke "time", as if
that was some mysterious error on the part of Mankind.

Now define "motion", and "run" without invoking "time" or
"space". Please don't hide under Buddhist mysticism this early.

Rub two sticks together, the motion involved is not time dependent.
Maybe you'd care to explain how it is. Perhaps you'd care to define
time between past and present then between present and future without
reverting to mysticism.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..
...

What is there in this statement that differs from
religious supposition? My guide tells me that
matter was made from nothingness. So far I've not seen one
scintilla of evidence that this
explanation is any less viable than any other
story humans have come up with.


Exactly my point. It is religous nonsense, in a langauge that is
uncommon to Science, and is entirely untestable. You fling
words, and act incensed that I ask you to define them. So you
really were not interested in feedback, only in having a place to
have your "accident".

Typical reaction from an indoctrinated snob when stumped.



Matter is diffusing, not being "drawn in".

Matter 'diffuses' in which direction, from where, to
where?

Ostensibly, "Past" to "Future". "Small and Hot"
to "Diffuse and Cold". "Few states" to "Maximum
states".

Can you describe an actual path from past to future?


Yes. It passes through a lot of successive nows, and lots of
nine minute eggs are cooked.

In other words: you can't answer the question.



Can you describe "Small and Hot" to "Diffuse and
Cold" and "Few states" to "Maximum states" in
simple terms?


Yes. Net production of entropy. Hydrogen is fused to helium

The net production of entropy is what?



Mass appears to derive from the System, not

(detectably) the Progenitor to the system.

How does matter derive from a system undetected?


The "derivation" (connection) is not obvious. The
"derivation" (connection) is not detectable, since
all instruments similarly derive. I did not know
there were so many ways to misread a sentence.

If the connection is not [obvious], what then is it?


What is the connection between you and your "guide"? Is that
obvious? Is it extant? Is it testable? Do you have "sin" and
if so, can you test its limits?

Not a clue, eh?



Or did I also misread the above?


You did OK.

Still no answer to the question.



Entirely possible that space, time (the
"motion"), and mass all derive from the System.

What is there in this statement that differs from
religious supposition?

Ask Ernst Mach. Or Einstein.

Is that the same as asking God?


No, it is hoping that you and I can find some common ground.
This "treatise" accidentally got post on a science newsgroup.
(repaired)

It was meant for a science newsgroup. Where better to post it?
(repaired)



Otherwise a perfectly meaningless use of the
English language. Are you considering running
for the US Presidential nomination?

English is my third language, what's your excuse?


Your meaning is unclear. You need a thesaurus,
for alternate words to "Nothingness". It is very easy
in any language to construct "completely silly". Or
"fortune cookie sayings".

Explain why the word "nothingness" is a 'silly
fortune cookie saying'.


Reread what you orignally posted. Then note the comment where
you *asked* for criticism. Your original quote was really too
long for a fortune cookie, but has about the same content as most
fortune cookies.

Learn to read. I did not ask for antagonistic criticism, I asked for
"constructive comments in simple terms".


You have not helped understanding of this "Nothingness" you seek
to make so attractive.

I'm not seeking to make Nothingness attractive, just viable in the way
other hard to envision concepts are accepted as viable.

You may profit by reading some Thomas Kuhn: google him up.

On Feb 26, 12:30*pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter back
into the Nothingness from whence it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be appreciated.

We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing
of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym
of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the
present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is
the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But
this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no
individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the
germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or
foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited
possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no
law. It is boundless freedom.

Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly
esteemed by writers of an existentialist tendency, but by most others
regarded with axiety, nausea, or panic. Nobody seems to know how to
deal with it (he would, of course), and plain persons generally are
reported to have little difficulty in saying, seeing, hearing, and
doing nothing. Philosophers, however, have never felt easy on the
matter. Ever since Parmenides laid it down that it is impossible to
speak of what is not, broke his own rule in the act of stating it, and
deduced himself into a world where all that ever happened was nothing,
the impression has persisted that the narrow path between sense and
nonsense on this subject is a difficult one to tread and that
altogether the less said of it the better.

This escape, however, is not so easy as it looks. Plato, in pursuing
it, reversed the Parmenidean dictum by insisting, in effect, that
anything a philosopher can find to talk about must somehow be there to
be discussed, and so let loose upon the world that unseemly rable of
centaurs and unicorns, carnivorous cows, republican monarchs and wife-
burdened bachelors, which has plagued ontology from that day to this.
Nothing (of which they are all aliases) can apparently get rid of
these absurdities, but for fairly obvious reasons has not been invited
to do so. Logic has attempted the task, but with sadly limited
success. Of some, though not all, nonentities, even a logician knows
that they do not exist, since their properties defy the law of
contradiction; the remainder, however, are not so readily dismissed.
Whatever Lord Russell may have said of it, the harmless if unnecessary
unicorn cannot be driven out of logic as it can out of zoology, unless
by desperate measures which exclude all manner of reputable entities
as well. Such remedies have been attempted, and their effects are
worse than the disease. Russell himself, in eliminating the present
King of France, inadvertently deposed the present Queen of England.
Quine, the sorcerer's apprentice, has contrived to liquidate both
Pegasus and President Truman in the same fell swoop. The old
logicians, who allowed all entities subsitence while conceding
existence, as wanted, to an accredited selection of them, at least
brought a certain tolerable inefficiency to their task. Of the new it
can only be said that solitudinem faciunt et pacem appellant--they
make a desert and call it peace. Whole realms of being have been
abolished without warning, at the mere nonquantifying of a variable.
The poetry of Earth has been parsed out of existence--and what has
become of its prose? There is little need for an answer. Writers to
whom nothing is sacred, and who accordingly stop thereat, have no
occasion for surprise on finding, at the end of their operations, that
nothing is all they have left.

The logicians, of course, will have nothing of all this. Nothing, they
say, is not a thing, nor is it the name of anything, being merely a
short way of saying of anything that it is not something else.
"Nothing" means "not-anything"; appearances to the contrary are due
merely to the error of supposing that a grammatical subject must
necessarily be a name. Asked, however, to prove that nothing is not
the name of anything, they fall back on the claim that nothing is the
name of anything (since according to them there are no names anyway).
Those who can make nothing of such an argument are welcome to the
attempt. When logic falls out with itself, honest men come into their
own, and it will take more than this to persuade them that there are
not better cures for this particular headache than the old and now
discredited method of cutting off the patient's head.

The friends of nothing may be divided into two distinct though not
exclusive classes: the know-nothings, who claim a phenomenological
acquaintance with nothing in particular, and the fear-nothings, who,
believing, with Macbeth, that "nothing is but what is not," are
thereby launched into dialectical encounter with nullity in general.
For the first, nothing, so far from being a mere grammatical illusion,
is a genuine, even positive, feature of experience. We are all
familiar with, and have a vocabulary for, holes and gaps, lacks and
losses, absenses, silences, impalpabilities, insipidities, and the
like. Voids and vacancies of one sort or another are sought after,
dealt in and advertised in the newspapers. And what are these, it is
asked, but perceived fragments of nothingness, experiential blanks,
which command, nonetheless, their share of attention and therefore
deserve recognition? Sartre, for one, has given currency to such
arguments, and so, in effect, have the upholders of "negative facts"--
an improvident sect, whose refrigerators are full of nonexistent
butter and cheese, absentee elephants and so on, which they claim to
detect therein. If existence indeed precedes essence, there is
certainly reason of a sort for maintaining that nonexistence is also
anterior to, and not a mere product of, the essentially parasitic
activity of negation; that the nothing precedes the not. But, verbal
refutations apart, the short answer to this view, as given, for
instance, by Bergson, is that these are but petty and partial
nothings, themselves parasitic on what already exists. Absence is a
mere privation, and a privation of something at that. A hole is always
a hole in something: take away the thing, and the hole goes too; more
precisely, it is replaced by a bigger if not better hole, itself
relative to its surroundings, and so tributary to something else.
Nothing, in short, is given only in relation to what is, and even the
idea of nothing requires a thinker to sustain it. If we want to
encounter it an sich, we have to try harder that that.

Better things, or rather nothings, are promised on the alternative
theory, whereby it is argued, so to speak, not that holes are in
things, but that things are in holes or, more generally, that
everything (and everybody) is in a hole. To be anything (or anybody)
is to be bounded, hemmed in, defined, and separated by a circumambient
fram of vacuity, and what is true of the individual is equally true of
the collective. The universe at large is fringed with nothingness,
from which indeed (how else?) it must have been created, if created it
was; and its beginning and end, like that of all change within it,
must similarly be viewed as a passage from one nothing to another,
with an interlude of being in between. Such thoughts, or others like
them, have haunted the speculations of nullophile metaphysicians from
Pythagoras to Pascal and from Hegel and his followers to Heidegger,
Tillich and Sartre. Being and non being, as they see it, are
complementary notions, dialectically entwined, and of equal status and
importance; although Heidegger alone has extended their symmetry to
the point of equipping Das Nichts with a correlative (if nugatory)
activity of noth-ing, or nihilating, whereby it produces Angst in its
votaries and untimely hilarity in those, such as Carnap and Ayer, who
have difficulty in parsing "nothing" as a present participle of the
verb "to noth."

Nothing, whether it noths or not, and whether or not the being of
anything entails it, clearly does not entail that anything should be.
Like Spinoza's substance, it is causa sui; nothing (except more of the
same) can come of it; ex nihilo, nihil fit. That conceded, it remains
a question to some why anything, rather than nothing, should exist.
This is either the deepest conunddrum in metaphysics or the most
childish, and though many must have felt the force of it at one time
or another, it is equally common to conclude, on reflection, that it
is no question at all. The hypothesis of theism may be said to take it
seriously and to offer a provisional answer. The alternative is to
argue that the dilemma is self-resolved in the mere possibility of
stating it. If nothing whatsoever existed, there would be no problem
and no answer, and the anxieties even of existential philosophers
would be permanently laid to rest. Since they are not, there is
evidently nothing to worry about. But that itself should be enough to
keep an existentialist happy. Unless the solution be, as some have
suspected, that it is not nothing that has been worrying them, but
they who have been worrying it.

http://www.nothing.com/

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..
...

Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...


"Matter exists on the motion created by
Nothingness drawing Matter back into
the Nothingness from whence it came."

I am not qualified for any debate about
physics, and so I'm just thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.

Time is a human construct.


You used the word "motion". Please define this
word, without using either "space" or "time".

The universe does not need human definitions in
order to run.

You post to a newsgroup, as if this was news. This requires
communication, an effort on the part of two parties. You
challeged "Mary Hogan" to give reason to invoke "time", as if
that was some mysterious error on the part of Mankind.

Now define "motion", and "run" without invoking "time" or
"space". Please don't hide under Buddhist mysticism this early.

David A. Smith



My tuppence:
"Motion is a pretty flower that smells bad." (from Star Trek? Something
about logic...)
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once." (unknown)
"Space is what keeps everything from happening to you." (unknown)
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". (A.E.)

Thank is all.

Immortalist wrote:

On Feb 26, 12:30 pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter back
into the Nothingness from whence it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be appreciated.


We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing
of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym
of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the
present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is
the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But
this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no
individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the
germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or
foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited
possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no
law. It is boundless freedom.

Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly
esteemed by writers of an existentialist tendency, but by most others
regarded with axiety, nausea, or panic. Nobody seems to know how to
deal with it (he would, of course), and plain persons generally are
reported to have little difficulty in saying, seeing, hearing, and
doing nothing. Philosophers, however, have never felt easy on the
matter. Ever since Parmenides laid it down that it is impossible to
speak of what is not, broke his own rule in the act of stating it, and
deduced himself into a world where all that ever happened was nothing,
the impression has persisted that the narrow path between sense and
nonsense on this subject is a difficult one to tread and that
altogether the less said of it the better.

This escape, however, is not so easy as it looks. Plato, in pursuing
it, reversed the Parmenidean dictum by insisting, in effect, that
anything a philosopher can find to talk about must somehow be there to
be discussed, and so let loose upon the world that unseemly rable of
centaurs and unicorns, carnivorous cows, republican monarchs and wife-
burdened bachelors, which has plagued ontology from that day to this.
Nothing (of which they are all aliases) can apparently get rid of
these absurdities, but for fairly obvious reasons has not been invited
to do so. Logic has attempted the task, but with sadly limited
success. Of some, though not all, nonentities, even a logician knows
that they do not exist, since their properties defy the law of
contradiction; the remainder, however, are not so readily dismissed.
Whatever Lord Russell may have said of it, the harmless if unnecessary
unicorn cannot be driven out of logic as it can out of zoology, unless
by desperate measures which exclude all manner of reputable entities
as well. Such remedies have been attempted, and their effects are
worse than the disease. Russell himself, in eliminating the present
King of France, inadvertently deposed the present Queen of England.
Quine, the sorcerer's apprentice, has contrived to liquidate both
Pegasus and President Truman in the same fell swoop. The old
logicians, who allowed all entities subsitence while conceding
existence, as wanted, to an accredited selection of them, at least
brought a certain tolerable inefficiency to their task. Of the new it
can only be said that solitudinem faciunt et pacem appellant--they
make a desert and call it peace. Whole realms of being have been
abolished without warning, at the mere nonquantifying of a variable.
The poetry of Earth has been parsed out of existence--and what has
become of its prose? There is little need for an answer. Writers to
whom nothing is sacred, and who accordingly stop thereat, have no
occasion for surprise on finding, at the end of their operations, that
nothing is all they have left.

The logicians, of course, will have nothing of all this. Nothing, they
say, is not a thing, nor is it the name of anything, being merely a
short way of saying of anything that it is not something else.
"Nothing" means "not-anything"; appearances to the contrary are due
merely to the error of supposing that a grammatical subject must
necessarily be a name. Asked, however, to prove that nothing is not
the name of anything, they fall back on the claim that nothing is the
name of anything (since according to them there are no names anyway).
Those who can make nothing of such an argument are welcome to the
attempt. When logic falls out with itself, honest men come into their
own, and it will take more than this to persuade them that there are
not better cures for this particular headache than the old and now
discredited method of cutting off the patient's head.

The friends of nothing may be divided into two distinct though not
exclusive classes: the know-nothings, who claim a phenomenological
acquaintance with nothing in particular, and the fear-nothings, who,
believing, with Macbeth, that "nothing is but what is not," are
thereby launched into dialectical encounter with nullity in general.
For the first, nothing, so far from being a mere grammatical illusion,
is a genuine, even positive, feature of experience. We are all
familiar with, and have a vocabulary for, holes and gaps, lacks and
losses, absenses, silences, impalpabilities, insipidities, and the
like. Voids and vacancies of one sort or another are sought after,
dealt in and advertised in the newspapers. And what are these, it is
asked, but perceived fragments of nothingness, experiential blanks,
which command, nonetheless, their share of attention and therefore
deserve recognition? Sartre, for one, has given currency to such
arguments, and so, in effect, have the upholders of "negative facts"--
an improvident sect, whose refrigerators are full of nonexistent
butter and cheese, absentee elephants and so on, which they claim to
detect therein. If existence indeed precedes essence, there is
certainly reason of a sort for maintaining that nonexistence is also
anterior to, and not a mere product of, the essentially parasitic
activity of negation; that the nothing precedes the not. But, verbal
refutations apart, the short answer to this view, as given, for
instance, by Bergson, is that these are but petty and partial
nothings, themselves parasitic on what already exists. Absence is a
mere privation, and a privation of something at that. A hole is always
a hole in something: take away the thing, and the hole goes too; more
precisely, it is replaced by a bigger if not better hole, itself
relative to its surroundings, and so tributary to something else.
Nothing, in short, is given only in relation to what is, and even the
idea of nothing requires a thinker to sustain it. If we want to
encounter it an sich, we have to try harder that that.

Better things, or rather nothings, are promised on the alternative
theory, whereby it is argued, so to speak, not that holes are in
things, but that things are in holes or, more generally, that
everything (and everybody) is in a hole. To be anything (or anybody)
is to be bounded, hemmed in, defined, and separated by a circumambient
fram of vacuity, and what is true of the individual is equally true of
the collective. The universe at large is fringed with nothingness,
from which indeed (how else?) it must have been created, if created it
was; and its beginning and end, like that of all change within it,
must similarly be viewed as a passage from one nothing to another,
with an interlude of being in between. Such thoughts, or others like
them, have haunted the speculations of nullophile metaphysicians from
Pythagoras to Pascal and from Hegel and his followers to Heidegger,
Tillich and Sartre. Being and non being, as they see it, are
complementary notions, dialectically entwined, and of equal status and
importance; although Heidegger alone has extended their symmetry to
the point of equipping Das Nichts with a correlative (if nugatory)
activity of noth-ing, or nihilating, whereby it produces Angst in its
votaries and untimely hilarity in those, such as Carnap and Ayer, who
have difficulty in parsing "nothing" as a present participle of the
verb "to noth."

Nothing, whether it noths or not, and whether or not the being of
anything entails it, clearly does not entail that anything should be.
Like Spinoza's substance, it is causa sui; nothing (except more of the
same) can come of it; ex nihilo, nihil fit. That conceded, it remains
a question to some why anything, rather than nothing, should exist.
This is either the deepest conunddrum in metaphysics or the most
childish, and though many must have felt the force of it at one time
or another, it is equally common to conclude, on reflection, that it
is no question at all. The hypothesis of theism may be said to take it
seriously and to offer a provisional answer. The alternative is to
argue that the dilemma is self-resolved in the mere possibility of
stating it. If nothing whatsoever existed, there would be no problem
and no answer, and the anxieties even of existential philosophers
would be permanently laid to rest. Since they are not, there is
evidently nothing to worry about. But that itself should be enough to
keep an existentialist happy. Unless the solution be, as some have
suspected, that it is not nothing that has been worrying them, but
they who have been worrying it.

Philosophy, religion, science, logic or imagination can not accurately
describe Nothingness in the same way they are unable to systematically
describe Singularity. What I'm looking for is the cause that effects
the ongoing disappearance of matter/energy. In my mind, Nothingness
interacting with its opposite Somethingness seems to fit the bill. How
to accurately describe this activity is beyond human conceptual ability
yet activity between what is and what is not perceived is evident. It
doesn't matter whether or not I can affix the phenomena on a temporal
stake made of linguistic rigmarole. It is enough for me to know that
everything that is has a beginning and an end, with beginning and end
necessarily performing according to design. Else I'd do the
existentialist dreamy thing and go bye bye without hesitation.