space doesn't exist — thewonder

I like it, and I have it somewhat written, in part here:

I asked my djinni, “Show me another, more fundamental, version of time, in which the past and the future don’t exist.”

“It’s difficult,” she said, “for the prospects are grim; presentism does not just amount to the assertion that only present events or entities exist, but also that the present undergoes a dynamical ‘updating’, or exhibits a quality as of a fleeting swoosh, and this additional dynamical aspect is what threatens the substance of the debate between the presentist and an eternalist opponent.”

“In other words, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as to be or has been is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of What IS, and so it has no true ‘nonexistence’, for this as Nothing cannot be.”

“Yes, as you’re saying that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class.”

“Still, what if our perceived persistence of a selfsame world is an illusion?”

“We’ll still need a respite for presentism from the Einstein’s seemingly unavoidable besieging relativity of simultaneity.”

“What if we even went past the emergence quality of space as a degree of realness nevertheless, unto the complete elimination of space, leaving only time as the implicate order, an illusion of timelessness then only referring to the emergent but now totally explicate geometric time of spacetime, but not to a microscopic fundamental time where there would be no geometry, so that fundamental time exists but space and geometry do not?”
…

All of it here, although more of a brief, amongst a discussion of time's mode:

I'm glad that you like it, but I'm not quite sure how I feel about it now. I had just thought that nothing can't exist.

Presentism is difficult to understand because we conceptualize things through differentiation from past modalities. One exists only in the present, but understands only what has passed.

I'm glad that you like it, but I'm not quite sure how I feel about it now. I had just thought that nothing can't exist. — thewonder

You mean that everything possible, including space, has to exist? Could be, for the Eternal Basis has no point for any input to come into it, making it to probably be everything, given no design particulars.

Still, what we think of as space might not have an independent existence, with 'stuff' providing its own extension. Or, since we only ever 'see' our own mind and never anything else directly, it could be that we spatialize what works for us as 'space' without any extensions being so at all.

Presentism is difficult to understand because we conceptualize things through differentiation from past modalities. One exists only in the present, but understands only what has passed. — thewonder

Yes, and so to live well, 'Remember the Future'!

How can you remember the future? This is like when I decided to get into Zen Buddhism.

All that is present are the particles. There is nothing between them. Nothing does not exist. There is nothing there that is present in space. I, therefore, concluded that space does not exist. I think that it could, perhaps, be useful to conceptualize things along such lines. I just thought that I was taking it too far.

All that is present are the particles. There is nothing between them. Nothing does not exist. There is nothing there that is present in space. I, therefore, concluded that space does not exist. I think that it could, perhaps, be useful to conceptualize things along such lines. I just thought that I was taking it too far. — thewonder

Yes, particles are important, as useful field disturbances/perturbances, a kind of an alphabet that leads to words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, in a kind of a literary prosaic and poetic uni-verse. Probably the universe is no chock full of particles all adjacent to one another, but separated by flatter fields.

There would be no 'in space', per say. 'Nothing', having no being, just as we define it, is impossible.

OK, for the now and then and the zen of when, 'Predict the Future'. What's the weather going to be next month?

Partially overcast.

Partially overcast. — thewonder

And lighter toward dawn.

We need to return to First Principles and First Philosophy with a probably good direction that The Theory of Everything is likely something simple, and boring, even, or a least a minimal system of scattered basic stuff or energy.

In presentism, complexity arises way later on, and the same with externalism's block universe, with its fake time that also starts with simplicity, at least as we see it traversed. Higher beings would be in our future, not the past, so forget about that angle. Simple is in. Even a proton, small as it is, can't be fundamental, for it has parts, of quarks, that have to be more fundamental, this according to our fundamental arts.

An infinite regress of ever smaller and smaller part is out, too, for the effect would never surface, as the infinite never completes. The buck stops somewhere.

As you have it, 'Nothing' cannot be, and so existence is mandatory, with no option, unable to arise from 'Nothing', and if it could, then there wasn't really a 'Nothing', for the capability of something 'arising' would be a something. Goodbye to 'From Nothing'.

This isn't to say that a near nothing couldn't lead to a large balance of opposites that cancel out or mostly cancel out, such as with inflation's negative/positive energy balancing act, as proposed. It's more evident that there are many real balances in the universe.

So, the Everything-Possible-Existence ever all being here, in principle, is a brute fact (barring another Bang in our universe or spontaneous arisings) but is greatly bolstered by there being not anything else forthcoming, due to none from Nothing, this Totality all here, either potentially, bit by bit, in time, as in presentism, or all at once, as in eternalism.

Even though we are thus having Everything, with its eternal basis already here without ever being made, this apparent paradox need not concern us, for existence has no opposite that can be (real). Existence has to be, and, besides, there is indeed something.

‘Possibility’ is what’s fundamental, — PoeticUniverse

I’m the All and the One, present-Omni, — PoeticUniverse

These poems express some ideas that I address (prosaically) in my blog. If you don't mind, I may use them in a future post.

If you don't mind, I may use them in a future post. — Gnomon

That's fine for any poems I put out.

THE SUPER TOE IS CAUSELESS,
THUS, THAT IS THE SUPER TOE!

Our train of thought has driven us to the answer,
Of all that borne from near ‘nothing’ into eternity,
Of the origin of the original disorder,
The lone dawn of our trackless radix,
Via the rails and tunnels that ever ran out:

There cannot be ever more and more
Causes beneath even more extended causes;
Therefore, intuitive or not, the causeless is,
Being such as what we observe it in the quantum.

Thus, cause is only of our higher realm,
As downward thence to its root emergence—
‘Possibility’ needed no mother but itself;
An egg burst open, born without a chicken.

The causeless bottom is the potential
Of possibility that is/was ever there,
An eternal basis forced because something is
And because this existence can’t have an opposite.

Since it’s ‘defined’ as an undefined chaos,
There’s no problem of no initial definition had,
Since it can’t have one and so it needs not any,
Making it nothing in particular as everything.

Things themselves become and go of ‘virtual’ potential,
Some things remaining as the rather-enduring real.
The potential is as near to simple as it gets,
Second only to the nonexistent Nothing, of course.

So, then, the potential is of no mind or ‘seeing’,
For a thought system can never be constituted,
As there are no more fundamentals upon more;
For, the Potential is already the ultimate basis.

Simple things ever combine, and further up,
And/or go must through phase changes,
Leading to more complex composites/forms,
Inclined to neither be frozen nor unsticking.

Stillness, not existing at all, and not even being able to,
But, perhaps threatening to, is the simplest state of all,
So, it must ever jiggle about, manifesting as loose ‘change’,
The fluctuations of the quantum foam..

You might say, then, that, that is exactly why
There had to be the potential for things;
Otherwise… A lack of anything, forever.

We have now reached the unexpected TOE,
One that even satisfies the ongoing trend,
For, looking down, we’ve always observed
The ever descending simplicity of Nature.

Now, as such, we can’t really expect to find
An Ultimate Complexity sitting
Around there at the simplest point.

We didn’t find Mind there;
Thus, we are ever free to be,
Yet, this is more of the will able to operate
Than it ever able to be a first cause itself.

This causeless bottom ‘fate’…
Was/is, too, a ‘magical’ state,
For anything could become of it,
And so probably everything will.

‘Possibility’ is what’s fundamental,
For all that can be must first be possible.
This ‘Potential’ for All is necessity,
Since a Not can’t be, or even be meant.

I’ve noticed that our understanding of potential energy, consciousness, information and relationships are able to connect now in ways we perhaps haven’t been open to previously, thanks to quantum theory. — Possibility

In my previous response I provided a link to the glossary entry for "EnFormAction". Unfortunately, the links to further discussion were broken. So, I have now fixed it.

I am intrigued by the relationship between your screename, and the modern concept of Information as statistical Potential , Probability , or Possibility.

Information is Possibility : "A measure of uncertainly and information for possibility theory is introduced in this paper The measure is called the U-uncertainty or, alternatively, the U-information." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081078208960799

In Post 33 : "Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms." http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

In Post 60 : "From the universal Quantum Field of statistical possibilities, "virtual particles" or "wavicles" mysteriously appear from nowhere as almost real particles of matter, such as Bosons & Leptons." http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

I think the problem is the notion that things are “made of” something, and are not themselves something.

I think the problem is the notion that things are “made of” something, and are not themselves something. — NOS4A2

The Eternal Basis would be unmakeable and unbreakable, as ungenerated and deathless.

Good point. Me, despite years of study of physics I still have no idea. I think like Wienberg we are closing in, but as of now beats me

Thanks
Bill

Energy and mass are. not equal. The equation says mass is a form of energy. The question is what is energy. For that see Noether's theorem. Bit busy right now, will expand on it with links a bit later.