Oh, and I hope you understand what universal relevance is. It's a theory that suggests that there are things in the world, that are completely relevant to everything else....and the idea of this possibility.....would have to mean that EVERYTHING is relevant to everything.

It's basically a religous theory, from the perspective of science and science alone, that has absolutely nothing to do with him being able to judge who is right or wrong in this conversation.

Studying universal relevance you're entire life will not get you anywhere closer to understanding this topic.....

There are no answers to nothing; but there is infinite definitions.

Nothing is what it is: nothing; yet at the same time, nothing is almost everything.



[/Jimi Hendrix on LSD :) ]

I like the idea of you trying to contribute. And I like the idea of jimi hendrix on acid as well.

But that makes no sense. Human translations of perceptions mean don't mean anything in reality. They are just ways to communicate. The difference is, we can never fully explain any 1 thing in the world. So our babel is really just a feeble attempt to explain what we cannot.

You can say nothing has infinite definitions. But that is the tricky part. You can't define what doesn't exist. You can try to define the idea that something doesn't exist, but that's as close as you will ever come.

Human translation of human realities is a product of conditioning. Not truth.

Well, I'm sure technically, and I guess obviously, nothing really doesn't exist.

But a definition is not a fully explanation, I've found myself confused still and wondering about things after looking up a word or whatever.

noth·ing –noun
1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2. no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3. something that is nonexistent.
4. nonexistence; nothingness:
dictionary.com

I guess what I'm trying to say is, how are you so sure our own human communication did not make up the literal thought and creation of "nothing". Or even if nothing exists.

"In the beginning, there was nothing."
^I guess that just makes things harder to understand for me.

see, this where the conversation should have gone 3000000 posts ago..thankyou for dis-connecting words from reality.

And speaking from a non-religious point of view....not saying that I am not religious, just trying to be objective as possible.

Our human communication DID create the literal thought of "nothing"

Because human communication, in general, is an attempt to explain the world at hand.

And with such a literal perspective, people seek answers for everything, and tend to create them through logic.

IE...if something exists...and nothing is the opposite of something...than nothing must exist as well.

when in reality, the existance of something is what makes nothing impossible.

Since the beginning of time(assuming you don't believe time is infinite) we've tried to make sense of things we have no business understanding...and we havn't succeeded..we've just found a middle ground that is acceptable for now.

There is no reason to question the idea that nothing exists...because who cares?

to question it is extremely meaningless and empty. The only purpose this conversation even serves, is just an exercise to think outside of what we've been conditioned to think like, and to extend outside of this topic, into a more relevant topic, that is more rewarding to discuss, yet has no real answers.


honestly, who gives a shit about fact and fiction?

*wonders if everyone relises there arguing over nothing*

:thumbup:

and I'm suprised nobody has said something like...well...well...everything is nothings counterpart.

so to accept that nothing doesn't exist, is the same as to accept that everything exists.


I mean really, NO THING, DOES NOT EXIST, it's almost like a double negative.

and everything does exist

not anymore, it's like God decided to create something new out of nothing* all over again.

We're going to go in circles in this thread for a while. haha.

&i guess, we've accomplished.. well.. nothing by talking about.. nothing.. this whole time.

Thats because like i said, now this conversation shifted into something completely different. Now it is nothing but ideas.

And ideas are never ending....just like a circle :)

That's not true in my opinion. The deceptive nature of our need to communicate explanations of things that have no explanation, is what inspires and elightens at the same time. Ideas come from ideas.

All of the great prophets, were great prophets not because they were more intellectually capable than us. They were just more advanced intellectually, than the rest of the people at that time.

If i were to say something that made no sense at all.

As communication advances further, people will be able to find a way to make sense out of it.

People of this generation are able to come to the same conclusions as the great prophets, with no evidence of anyone already coming to that conclusion earlier.

If i or anyone were to ever say something that appeared to be ground breaking for the times.

It would surely be common "knowledge" in the future, even without knowing it was ever said.


Nothing - by interpreation of the word in society....nothing is truly original.


I am a mold of people before me. Everything I say, do, think, or feel isn't brand new. It is simply an elaboration of what was already there.

That is why i changed my name to R-Evolution. Because fundamentally, time is a measurment of the revolution of the earth. And as the earth revolves....we evolve. Maybe not physically, but surely mentally. Revolution. evolution...r-evolution.

they are one in the same.

"Oh, and I hope you understand what universal relevance is. It's a theory that suggests that there are things in the world, that are completely relevant to everything else....and the idea of this possibility.....would have to mean that EVERYTHING is relevant to everything.

Studying universal relevance you're entire life will not get you anywhere closer to understanding this topic....."

Wrong.

I said there was Nothing, you said there could not possibly be nothing anywhere at all. Because everything is everywhere. Which makes you in complete agreement with your definition of "Universal Relevance".. Could you stop now ? You talk in not only circles but paradoxes and you repeat yourself in the process of doing these rounds in space.

That isn't my definition. That's what it is. Unless you've studied it yourself. Which Logic tells me you havn't, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to point out that your friend in the navy studied it. Or you would have atleast pointed out that you have studied it as well.

And no, i was correct. You could study that THEORY...not FACT your whole life. And that still won't bring you closer to understanding the concept. Because you can't understand nothing, you can only slightly understand the concept. And understanding the concept doesn't mean that you are to dispose of your need for concrete answers.

It's a matter of accepting something you don't understand, because even though It cannot be explained conciously, especially verbally, that doesn't deny what can't possibly be denied.


I never once said everything is everywhere. I said there are things everywhere. That is what seperates existence from non-existence. That is logic. The idea of nothing is abstrakt. My position on universal relevance is meaningless.

However, just to show how you once again, that you do not understand all of what I'm saying. I am not convinced of universal relevance. I personally don't believe that everything is completely connected, because some things that don't appear to be connected to eachother, share a slight similarity just because those things that don't appear to be connected, could be connected to something else of the same thing.

It's like the human race. There is 6 degrees of seperation between all of us. Maybe there is only 6 degrees of seperation between everything in the universe, but that still doesn't make it completely connected.


so you see, I'm not in complete agreement with the theory.


Does completely agreeing with it support that nothing doesn't exist. Yes it does.


I never said accepting universal relevance completely will not bring you any closer to understanding the concept.

I said the study of it.

Just like the study of christianity doesn't bring you closer to God.
and it certaintly doesn't bring you any closer to understand how he created everything.


both beliefs are decisions you make...they arn't things that inevitably happen just by studying. In fact, studying christianity can easily pull you farther from God.

all it does is provide information. Information is a source of questions. You ask questions, you won't get answers.

Perhaps i worded my statement wrong though. It probably would have been more appropriate to say that, the study of universal relevance will not necessarily get you anywhere closer to understand the concept of nothing not being able to possibly exist.

It can bring you closer, at the same time, it can bring you farther away than you originally were.



The only thing that determines ones understanding of the concept, is like I said, being able to accept it without needing to fully comprehend it.


It's those who settle for nothing but resolute answers, that are not capable of understanding the concept.

Had you understood me like you claimed you did, and explained your understanding of what I said to you accurately, your dude might have been like yeah, he is right.

Instead you explained what you THOUGHT i was saying, and he completely ignored the topic in general to point out that I was contradicting myself when in fact i wasn't.

Maybe he wouldn't have agreed, either way...it doesn't change what is and what isn't.

And i find it amusing that you like to say I am going in circles, and repeat myself in the process.


After it's been proven that you didn't understand what i was saying, not proven by me. But by your own self. How can you resent me for being repetitive? I knew you didn't get what I was saying everytime you responded. I tried to help you understand.

Whether or not I was completely successful doesn't matter....the point is....to be upset at someone who is vigilant in trying to help you understand, is absolutely rediculous.


It's waisting energy for no purpose. And it's only effect is stunting your growth as a person.

Fuck this thread is giving me a headache. >_>

It's not his fault for not fully understanding what he isn't capable of fully understanding yet.

It's mine for not acknowledging that I am not capable of making him capable of anything, even though I believed it anyways.

I apologise.



Unfortunately, I am not perfect. And i lack the ability to decide whether i should stop because it is arrogant of me to ignore the truth. Or if i should continue because by quitting I am acknowledging that my effort to educate was in vain, and waistful.

Nothing is nothing. The end. The point of this thread wasn't even nothing, it was actually what I said in the second post.