The idea is that the vacuum of space itself will transform into virtual particles and eventually become an impenetrable wall of pure energy. Virtual particles are constantly appearing out of nothing and disappearing again and are, theoretically, incapable of being detected directly. Still, their existence has been confirmed by such things as the lamb shift and simply holding two metal plates close enough together they will exert an outward pressure even in a vacuum. Whether they increase in number at close to the speed of light is the still to be determined theory of Unruh.

Relativity suggests space and time are constantly exchanging identities, but in a causal fashion, and implies that time is possibly an illusion and we inhabit a fated mono-block universe. My own view is that the passage of time is merely the greater context of the void exchanging identities with its contents similar to the Unruh Effect. We perceive time passing simply because a context without any content, and vice versa, is a contradiction and a metaphysical extreme excluded by intrinsic yin-yang dynamics. Everything being paradoxical means we can never determine with certainty if our universe is fated or changing so we perceive it as usually changing by exchanging geometry or space for time and vice versa. Even whether time is flowing forwards or backwards would ultimately remain a mystery and the arrow of time can be viewed as merely due to the fact the human mind doesn't work backwards.

Note that the idea that a context without any content and vice versa can explain why its impossible to achieve a perfect vacuum, absolute zero, or the speed of light.

What is your notion of "void"? Is this an absence of everything, including gravity, space-time, everything?

My own view is that the passage of time is merely the greater context of the void exchanging identities with its contents similar to the Unruh Effect. — wuliheron

How could a void have contents, isn't this an explicit contradiction? I don't understand this concept of "void" which you seem to have. It appears like a reification of nothing. The problem I see with this metaphysical perspective, is that if you make nothing into something, it can be whatever you want it to be, because it's pure fantasy, really nothing. So whatever you make it into is just whatever you want it to be.

Half the world recognizes what is commonly called "The mother of all" or the void that gives rise to the infinite things that exist. One without the other is a contradiction in terms because like up and down, back and front, the two define one another. Everything being context dependent or paradoxical might sound like its impossible to ever prove such a thing, however, quantum mechanics is a good example that the relationship can be inferred and established statistically. What I'm attempting to do with my writing is extrapolate a systems logic that describes how the two appear to exchange identities in every way imaginable that is self-consistent.

This is related to the contextual assertion that words only have demonstrable meaning in specific contexts. By expressing words as variables I can allow them to collectively express the systems logic. You could think of it as staring off into infinity and seeing the same symmetry fading into the distance. A four fold supersymmetry would then express the recursion in the law of identity as infinity vanishes into indeterminacy.

My own suspicion is that space and time can exchange identities in extreme contexts and its possible to produce nonlinear temporal effects or "ripples" in time itself and the thrust they are developing is actually time being converted into space behind the device or space in front of the device being warped and compacted, but that's all speculation at this point. — wuliheron

I don't understand what you are talking about. It may be imminently sensible or it may be pure nonsense (as opposed to adulterated nonsense). I can't tell -- I don't know enough to know or not know about voids and contexts and identities bouncing around the mulberry bush. There may be a weasel about to pop.

Think of it as a fundamental law of logic and physics that a context without any content and vice versa is impossible. Hence, we see geometry or objects moving into the future, but always changing in the process. That process can be expressed as a systems logic where the more humble anything becomes, the more it resembles the void and the more efficient it becomes, but in extreme contexts like a black hole its incredible efficiency is transformed into creative output because metaphysical extremes are always excluded by the context and content defining one another.

Exactly how the passage of time changes according to the content and context in every situation is something I have yet to work out, but it means time can be expressed as either static juxtapositions as in a fated Relativitistic mono-block universe or as flow dynamics or bandwidth issues.

I should perhaps add that this is similar to Adrian Bejan's Constructal Theory, proposed as an amendment to the second law of thermodynamics, and the Chinese mysticism of Chi. Rocks rolling downhill either steadily become smaller and rounder, more humble, or are pushed out of the flow altogether until they collectively support the kind of efficient flow dynamics that can cause an avalanche to change everything in an instant. The smaller rocks within the soil are also necessary for life as we know it because they can efficiently convey both water and heat.

I could go on and on attempting to explain the details, but it well accepted philosophy that is now becoming accepted physics. You don't need to identify exactly what kind of rocks they are or whatever in order to observe their flow dynamics and how it changes their role within the environment.

Think of it as a fundamental law of logic and physics that a context without any content and vice versa is impossible. Hence, we see geometry or objects moving into the future, but always changing in the process. — wuliheron

I think you have things backward wuliheron. There is nothing in existence prior to the present, in the future, this is the "void". The void is that wall of emptiness which is right in front of you all the time, the future. There is nothing there which can be remembered, sensed, or experienced in any way. Objects are not "moving into the future" because this would be a process of annihilation at each moment of the present, as the object enters the void of the future.

Instead, objects come into existence at each moment of the present. We have tracked the relative positioning of objects, through the past, and this is what we know as the motion of objects. So the objects have been moving through the past, but they are not moving into the future, their motion always stays in the past. We can project to a future point in time, and claim that an object will move to a particular place when that point in time becomes a past point, but this is not a case of moving into the future. All movement of objects is always in the past, that is a brute fact.

When Max Planck first discovered quantum mechanics he begged his colleges to explain the joke complaining that a sense of humor was never on his list of job requirements. The ripples from his discovery are still being felt today and, for example, Donald Hoffman is a Game theorist who spent ten years studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another only to conclude that if the human mind and brain had ever resembled anything like reality we would have long ago become extinct as a species. Likewise, when mathematicians examined classical mathematics and causal physics they discovered that any number of simple metaphors can describe the universe causally and, for example, you can describe everything causally as merely consisting of bouncing springs, whirling vortexes, or vibrating rubber sheets if you prefer because all of them provide equally good analogies.

My own description of time is merely a model for that which ultimately makes no sense and the only issue is how useful are such models. When you can no longer identify that you have identified nothing you have personal issues to deal with.

A cold wood stove at close to the speed of light would, according to the theory, start to glow red until it eventually disintegrated. — Wuliheron

Unless it collided with Russell's Teapot, in which case both would be blown to smithereens.

The latter, I suspect.

Particle accelerators should be capable of testing the effect within a few years.

However, I would point out that the first quantifiable theory of humor has already established that humor is about perceiving anything low in entropy and this year the US federal government finally admitted that they have classified a few jokes as vital to the national defense. When is a joke no longer a joke? When it makes more sense than using classic logic.

Russel was a great admirer of his student Wittgenstein and the story goes when someone asked Witt what was the meaning of meaning itself he quipped, "What do you mean by what is the meaning of meaning?" It is now possible to earn your doctorate in comedy and the sciences will never be the same again. Ideas such as fasifiability are rapidly going down the toilet of your personal preference which is why I am writing "The Book That Can Never Be Written". If you have no personal truth there's simply no point in discussing the truth.

Perhaps Hawking is like the fictional mathematician in Asimov's Foundation series ;)

. . .Seldon foresees the imminent fall of the Galactic Empire, which encompasses the entire Milky Way, and a dark age lasting 30,000 years before a second great empire arises. Seldon also foresees an alternative where the interregnum will last only one thousand years. To ensure the more favorable outcome, Seldon creates a foundation of talented artisans and engineers at the extreme end of the galaxy, to preserve and expand on humanity's collective knowledge, and thus become the foundation for a new galactic empire. — Wikipedia

When you can no longer identify that you have identified nothing you have personal issues to deal with. — wuliheron

By "identified nothing' do you mean identified nothing as if it were something? Is this like seeing something which is not there? So when you no longer know that you are hallucinating, then you have personal problems? Is this "nothing" time? We identify it, and name it as "time", when it is really nothing?

By "identified nothing' do you mean identified nothing as if it were something? Is this like seeing something which is not there? So when you no longer know that you are hallucinating, then you have personal problems? Is this "nothing" time? We identify it, and name it as "time", when it is really nothing? — Metaphysician Undercover

Heavy cream, man.

"The last thoughts of the Geostigma's death. Those remnants will join the Lifestream and girdle the planet. Choking it... corroding it. What I want, Cloud, is to sail the darkness of the cosmos with this planet as my vessel, just as my mother did long ago. Then one day we'll find a new planet. And on its soil, we'll create a shining future." - Sephiroth.

And here we all are.

Heavy cream, man. — Bitter Crank

One of my all time favourites! I still spin the vinyl, it's pretty scratchy though

Socrates became famous for endlessly repeating a barroom joke he told for drinks, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing!" This is known as the Law of Identity which Aristotle later used as the foundation of formal logic, meaning, all of logic is based on a joke. Hence, the reason quantum mechanics can casually turn both Zeno's paradoxes and calculus into indeterminate mush.

How is "the only thing I know is that I know nothing" related to Aristotle's rendition of The Law of Identity?

Aristotle proved that the law of noncontradiction replies upon the law of identity if you want to get technical.

OK, so let's assume that we identify nothing.

I take it that your argument is that we cannot proceed toward the law of non-contradiction, or any other logic until we identify that we have identified nothing, i.e., we must validate that the thing which we have identified as nothing is truly nothing. And if we have identified nothing, and haven't identified that we have identified nothing, we have problems. So how would we identify that we have identified nothing? How would we know that the nothing we have identified is truly nothing, rather than not nothing.

Furthermore, if we identify that we have identified nothing, i.e., validate that the thing identified as nothing is truly nothing, then doesn't this necessitate that nothing is something? In order to identify that the thing identified is truly the thing identified, isn't it necessary that there is such a thing as the thing identified? Then how could this be nothing? Therefore it is clearly the case that any attempt to identify nothing is self-defeating.

You cannot know anything if ya don't know nothing which makes everything more egalitarian, hence, supporting supersymmetry that vanishes into indeterminacy, or what can be described as a universal recursion in the law of identity. Its extreme egalitarian character and four fold yin-yang symmetry reflects what can be described as a nonsensical singular-infinity or paradoxical version of synergy where the greater context inevitably trumps any content. A simple geometric metaphor would be that everything should resemble both the creative impetus of the Big Bang and the relentless finale of Big Crunch because up and down, back and front, context and content will always define one another and everything being egalitarian the Big Bang and Big Crunch symbolize both the infinite and finite.

This is analog logic with an abacus being an excellent example. When Hewlett Packard attempted to film a commercial racing one of their calculators against an abacus they discovered the meaning of analog logic the hard way. Despite their input method requiring fewer key strokes than any other calculator the abacus beat them every time because its input is simultaneously its output and there is no equivalent function to = or enter. Analog logic produces analogs of what it is used to model and can also be described as pattern matching with the brain generating enormous patterns it then compares against one another, thus, allowing dumb neurons to organize and shift their focus without a clue as to what they are actually doing merely searching for what's missing from this picture or anything low in entropy. It also becomes the only viable way to organize when you start organizing neurons in enormous numbers.

A Jedi is one with his sphincter, thus he feels the force flow through him,
Knowing that great behinds always stink alike anonymously.

Do you stand behind your own great stinking behind?

Fortunately there are some things which TCP/IP does not transmit.

Yes, among them the olfactory, but unfortunately not all stenches are of an olfactory nature, and those ones seem to be able to slip through the net.

I've been waiting for the arrival of Digital Chicken, but haven't sighted (or smelled) it yet. ;-)

I imagine it being the kind of thing they will eat on spacecraft

Well, it sounds kinda boring, but at least it'd have to be better for you than factory-raised chicken! :B

Responding to the OP. If we are all part of one consciousness, then maybe we can prevent all these bad experiences happening in the future by appealing to the higher consciousness. ;)

One of my all-time favourite spiritual books was very popular in the 1960s and 70's, called The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation (through knowing the One Mind), translated by Walter Evans-Wentz. It was a huge seller back in the day, although I've since learned that E-W's translation, whilst well-intentioned, had no grounding in genuine scholarship, as the original text in question didn't say anything about 'the One Mind'.

But the idea of a fundamental 'unity of consciousness' is doubtless a very ancient intuition and allusions to it can be found in all kinds of sources, albeit mainly underground and 'mystical-occult'. It the basic idea behind the New Age.

Well we can try, but folk have been praying for millennia, but the problems keep mounting. Perhaps it needs someone to pray for the right thing.

I do consider our being of one consciousness as you say, but I am of the opinion that we are here to save ourselves and in doing so, both showing that it can be done and moving on to the next stage in our development. Rather than wasting this opportunity.