You’d be closer to making sense if you used “belief” where you use “truth”.
1 Like
You are right, this completely slipped my mind. Where as I see belief as a filler for truth that has not shown itself (yet). Nice catch!
1 Like
Hey, thanks for the response,
Yes, that’s about what I mean.
It’s an immaterial “world” based on something like the matrix.
+0 an -0, would be terms. +0 would be the immaterial or virtual world and -0 would be the code, for lack of a better word.
We may also see the universe as the computer, there has been theories from what I know that the universe can be seen as such.
I guess code and the virtual will still count as something, but it would have no real matter or energy.
If code and virtual, however exist in a void or 0, they may well be nothing, we then would have to discribe what we mean by void and what can fill it without making nothing something.
Perhaps nothingness in itself is also some kind of state or dimension ?
If by positive, you mean moving forward, then by negative you must mean moving backwards. So you are saying nothing moves backwards because we have only observed things moving forward in time.
Okay, but moving backwards is not the same as the past. The past was also moving forward at a point in time. So nothing moving backwards should still lead you to thinking that “nothing” does not exist. And since everything has always moved forward (as far as we know), then “everything” is the only thing that remains.
If by positive, you mean future, then by negative you must mean past. So are you saying everything lives in the future and nothing lives the past? If so, I’d simply say it is a false assumption. There was stuff in the past as far as we know. Nothing can’t equate the past then.
Even if we continued with your line of reasoning, I can only think of the present as being static. Timeless. Not moving, by definition. But it wouldn’t be nothing, nor everything. It would be neither. As @Mijin1 suggested.
Or one could say more intuitively: Now and the future is all we can experience. Since we can’t move in the past, it might as well be considered nothingness. I wouldn’t be actual nothingness though.
But by a stretch of the imagination I could think of someone arguing that undefined means the same as “nothing” essentially… in which case nothing would exist as past and present. And everything only lives as potential (or in a hypothetical future).
That’s a crazy stretch though. For me the line of reasoning here doesn’t work. I do think everything and nothing may blend in a way but for different reasons (you know it from my post on infinity haha). Still interesting though.
I have always found the word “universe” to be a very handy term meaning ‘everything that exists, everywhere, everywhen’. Everything. No constraints.
Philosophical process on the concept of the universe should be drawing the boundaries, where is the limit for our perception to be able to know the objects and size of the universe.
Of course, the concept can stretch to mean everything that exists, everywhere without constraints. But from analytical point of view, does it actually make sense? I don’t know what it means by everything existing everywhere. What is everything in real term? How does it look like? Where is it?
Can we see them all, and know what they are in their origin and capacities and reason for their existence? We do know some of them within our daily experience i.e. I know some of the houses I can see from my window, the hills and mountains I see, the cars on the road running with speed, and people walking on the streets - even then, they are only in appearance.
I can’t say I know anything about them more than in their appearance to me. In that case, can I claim that I know anything about the universe? I am not sure.
Really? Why is that, or why should it be? 
Because philosophy pursues for more accurate knowledge. Philosophy wouldn’t accept unclear or obscure meanings of any concepts. One of the main aims of philosophy is to clarify and make things more understandable and knowable.
But as you would agree, there is limit to human perception. Defining the boundary of human knowledge is one of the philosophical tasks.
There is no point keep talking about what is beyond human perception, because it would be just each and everyone’s guess work talking about the objects and concepts which is impossible for human perception to grasp for its full meanings.
OK. As this topic isn’t really about the purpose or practice of philosophy, let’s leave it there, OK? 
I tried to clarify what it means by “everything” with the OP. I gave my opinion on it. I thought it would be a good idea to clarify the concept and scope of "everything.
Ok, fair enough. 
I reject the premise but accept it as a condition. Ill provide my interpretion.
What I think the author is intending when he/she/it states everything is all of existance itself. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. That being said, I think a better model that works here is the relation of magnetic poles on achieving a state of equilibrium or otherwise stated as the monopole rule. Following current known science, you cannot erase a north and south pole and these opposing forces do not cancel each other out to create a zero field. Instead, they create a magnetic field loop that moves in harmony and thus can be viewed as being negative, positive, and everything based on what vectors are being considered.
When it comes to your man being upside down concept there was a leading theory called earth displacement theory that was replaced by plate tectonics that deals with a shifting mantle. The idea was a man could be upside down on one rotation and be rightside up on another. This would adjust the poles themselvss making north/positive become south and vice versa. The neutral point being when they are inactive.
Relevancy today? I hear the virtual world that is being built by companies includes rigs that use this concept in connection with the headsets.
Nothing is everywhere all at once, ever present under scrutiny and a self perpetuating ineffible enigma waiting to unfold into reality. Zero is not a number, it’s a ‘place holder’ indicating the absence of value or simply ‘empty space’ filled in for the sake of syntax. I haven’t read all these posts yet but I will get to it and this is my first contribution.
This might not be relevant but one of my favourite quotes is “the assumption that the future will resemble the past can never be proven”. I forget who coined it. I think modern science points out that most of reality is more like empty space so that’s where I get the idea from that ‘nothing’ is everywhere I guess. And if there is such a thing as nothing we can never really know what it is because by definition it is not ‘observable’. An absence of reality is more like a dream which is where all the good stuff gets suggested and probably hasn’t been real yet. Silence and darkness can drive people mad and I suspect that is because of what may be concealed within.
“There can be no demonstrative arguments to prove, that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we have had experience” David Hume
Your welcome.
I happen to believe in multiverse(s) as a concept that might be true but seems very difficult to prove. I mean I read or heard somewhere that if anything can happen then it will.. Kind of like murphy’s law - “if anything can go wrong then it will”. I enjoy tying my mind in knots trying to decipher what nothingness really is and maybe I will never quite understand it, but I’m ok with that and as absurd as it sounds (Everything is nothing and nothing is everything) I believe that contemplation of either one can lead to a better understanding of the other one. How can ‘everything’ ever be strictly known without knowing ‘nothing’ and recognising similarities between the two? And vice versa - I mean if you could meditate and observe the ‘nothing’ clearly enough then maybe by some kind of sensory overload or enlightenment everything else would become clearer? Forgive me waffling? I’m trying to express and my opinion on things that can only be speculated before thinking things through. If there is a God, I bet he rolls on the floor laughing at these kinds of discussions whenever we try to make accurate conclusions?
1 Like
I believe I can see where your coming from. Once I know more in depth of nothingness, perhaps the concept of everything will come out more clearer, same in reverse thus possibly making my claim of nothing is everything vice versa more understandable.
I’m as well trying to untangle what nothingness really is, all this is just some popped up idea in my brain that hasn’t been fully articulated it yet lol
This is because we perceive the environment through the neurons of the grid, which construct a plane (or line) within our representation—we associate some events with neurons at one end, others with neurons at the other end. This is our purely subjective attempt to navigate the objective world.
1 Like