Why would there just be a blank space? From QM debunks materialism part 1.

[Dylan Page]

Leo in his video said - Why would there be nothing, just a blank space? What enforces there to be nothing rather than something? Why isn't there for example an elephant, or a kangaroo? And this is followed up by the idea that everything inflates into being because nothing is unstable. I just had trouble understanding this logic because it doesn't seem completely sound to me. Maybe I'm wrong, that's why im posting it here. 

Nothing isn't a concept, or an idea, or any kind of conceivable thing. It's just nothing, it doesn't need reason or enforcement because it doesn't actually exist, it's just a lack of existence, substance, form, or anything, it's completely void, it's not even a blank space. 

He asks what enforces there to be nothing rather than something? Obviously nothing is there to enforce the lack of existence of everything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that therefore everything must exist as well. 

There doesn't need to be justification or explanation for there being nothing, because there is no reason for nothing, it's just nothing, there is no further cause or purpose. 

Then you ask, well why isn't there a particle? or a tower? or whatever. I would say, why would there be a particle? Nothing has no potential, no stuff to make the particle out of, no anything. This particle can't exist because there is no potential for it to be made. 

Maybe I'm agreeing with what he is saying and I don't realize it, or I'm wrong, or he's wrong, I don't know. Please let me know what you guys think, I just noticed this in his video and I'm kind of scratching my head over here. Thank you for taking the time to read this if you did. 

[Leo Gura]

@Dylan Page The problem is that you are assuming nothing and something are objectively distinguishable. They are not. Since there is no one to say what is nothing and what is something, they become identical.

Reality cannot know whether it is something or nothing. So it is both at once.

[Inliytened1]

Also i think you might be missing the whole point of the episode.  The bottom line with what was discovered with Quantum physics is at the subatomic level, subatomic particles could not be measured.  A physicist could measure the velocity or momentum, but not the position.  Or they could measure the position but not the velocity.  And the observer doing the measurement directly affected the measurement itself, skewing the results.   It was then determined by the physicists that since something could not be measured it must be stated that what was trying to be measured must not exist.   (Logical Positivism) . The two statements were identical.   Therefore the electron only existed in a state of potential or possibility - to collapse into a particle only when observed.

 

[Leo Gura]

Everything is totally relative. You cannot ground reality in any thing.

Any form you say is fundamental, isn't.

QM hit its face against this brick wall.

[Dylan Page]

@Inliytened1 But the reason that we can't measure the subatomic particles is because how the photons affect the measurement, not because of consciousness itself. This would mean that the particle does have a position and velocity but we just can't measure it due to an entirely natural reason. Am I missing something here? 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Dylan Page

[Dylan Page]

@Leo Gura Thank for the response. Also, I had another thread I made earlier but I don't think you saw it. I was asking about reality being an intelligent mind. I watched your point of life video and I was following up until you made that claim. Is this something you determined through direct experience or something that you can logically deduce? I want to understand where you are coming from but I have no fucking idea how to get DMT in Phoenix, Arizona. So, I want to know if I can come to an intellectual understanding about it because that claim isn't really scientifically verifiable in any way (which isn't a problem but in an epistemological sense, I want to know how you are so sure about it).

[Preetom]

5 minutes ago, Dylan Page said:

@Inliytened1 But the reason that we can't measure the subatomic particles is because how the photons affect the measurement, not because of consciousness itself. This would mean that the particle does have a position and velocity but we just can't measure it due to an entirely natural reason. Am I missing something here? 

Yes. You are missing yourself

 

[Dylan Page]

@Preetom Can you explain? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Preetom]

Just now, Dylan Page said:

@Preetom Can you explain? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

You haven't yet solved the deepest existential mystery of your own self.

So whatever you measure and try to understand ''out there", inevitably collapses into impossible mystery and contradictions.

When there is virus in the very first step, all other steps followed afterwards carry the corruption of that virus.

 

[Inliytened1]

@Dylan Page it's now widely accepted that they can't be measured because they only exist as probabilities.  Even Einstein couldn't dispute that although he originally tried.  Not just subatomic particles but any particles.  Larger items can be measured to better accuracy but still not to an infinitely accurate amount.  

There were still a few stragglers out there trying to figure out a way but they were dealt a serious blow in the 80s with additional experiments.

[Nahm]

@Dylan Page By conceptualizing, thinking about ‘it’, you’re taking yourself out of what you’re thinking about. Put the you that you know in the equation. Everything you see is a property-less  appearance. The ‘realness’ of ‘things’ is actually “the veiled you” (in a “I forgot state”) experiencing the actual you, if you will. The flower appears, it’s beauty is you. Love is lost found & lost, lost & found, the feeling is you. Look from a more and more inclusive, whole perspective. Know yourself more and more deeply, and recognize what you come to know in every thing. 

[InfinitePotential]

18 minutes ago, Dylan Page said:

@Inliytened1 But the reason that we can't measure the subatomic particles is because how the photons affect the measurement, not because of consciousness itself. This would mean that the particle does have a position and velocity but we just can't measure it due to an entirely natural reason. Am I missing something here? 

The particle absolutely does NOT have a position and velocity prior to measurement. There is no “particle” prior to measurement, merely a superposition of potentials (at least, according to QM). It doesn’t make sense to talk about it’s position and velocity, only probabilities of them given knowledge of the surrounding system. Our measurement literally creates the particle. And even then, it’s not really a particle. It’s just a collection of information about the size, shape, mass,  and other qualities of the appearance of a particle. 

If the double slit experiment is not convincing enough that consciousness plays a fundamental role, check out the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Wherein the measurement is made after the supposed particle crosses the double slit barrier, but before it hits the detector. When doing this, the wave function is collapsed and nature loads a back-history of the particle as if it had always been one and traveled through one slit or the other (even though if we let it hit the detector it would yield an interference pattern). 

But, no physical measurements were made at the slits. And yet, the particle behaved as a normal particle at the barrier (seemingly). Nothing physical could have effected it whatsoever. Many physicists try hard to deny this but it is extremely strong evidence that it is the knowledge of information which collapses the wave function. Nothing physical.

[EvilAngel]

I think it's hilarious how this community has a serious discussion about the concept of "nothing". ?

[InfinitePotential]

2 hours ago, Dylan Page said:

Nothing isn't a concept, or an idea, or any kind of conceivable thing. It's just nothing, it doesn't need reason or enforcement because it doesn't actually exist, it's just a lack of existence, substance, form, or anything, it's completely void, it's not even a blank space. 

My thoughts exactly my whole life. It really seems like there should be this Nothing rather than something. 

But, how could it be inconceivable if there were nothing to conceive? How could it not exist if nothing existed. How could it be formless if there were no form? Lack substance if there were no substance to lack? 

What’s the difference between existing and not existing? Between something and nothing?

Also, if this Nothing couldn’t be God, then wouldn’t that be a characteristic of this Nothing, thus making it something? Similarly if it couldn’t be an apple, or a person. Or a blank slate (deep sleep?) 

[Inliytened1]

Well you guys gotta remember when there is only One..and it is itself then it is both everything and nothing simultaneously

 

[Aakash]

@InfinitePotential this is the problem with trying to grasp it with a dualistic mind, you need it to be one or the other, but the truth is you have to experience it yourself without using your mind, to find out what it was if it was neither. otherwise what you said it wasn't becomes another duality defined by what it is. then you will go full circle and realise it is all those things and so you arrive at is is both something and nothing

but right now you have an understanding of something, but not what is nothing, only a concept of "it is not this, it is not that (neti-neti)"

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Dylan Page said:

This would mean that the particle does have a position and velocity but we just can't measure it due to an entirely natural reason. Am I missing something here?

No, that is not what QM says. What it says is: it does not have a position or velocity. It's not merely that our equipment is not good enough to measure it. It's that all measurement itself is relative and constructive. Positions, velocities, and even individual particles do not have an individual distinct objective reality. They are artifacts of the kinds of questions you pose to the world. If you change your questions you will get different answers.

The world is not made out of individual particles as though a castle built of Lego bricks. This is a silly, childish idea which has been long disproven by mainstream science.

You cannot ground reality whatsoever. Not in particles, not in strings, not in mathematics, not in positions, not in 3D space, not in time, not in velocities, not in objects, not in the brain, not in the Big Bang, not in evolution, not in science, not in logic, not in anything.

It is groundless and absolutely infinite.

[Dylan Page]

@Leo Gura Huh. Ok, I will have to look into QM more then. Is there a particular source you used to understand it or is it a collection of knowledge over time? 

[tedens]

I recommend it to about 38 minutes