PDA

View Full Version : W: The key to existence



stillakid
02-13-2006, 10:56 AM
I was taking the kids to school this morning and our discussion revealed a disturbing truth...the difference between everything and nothing is the W.

Consider: Whole vs. Hole

In the first, you have everything. All inclusive.

In the second, there is absence.

Now, to have a "hole," you must have "something" surrounding the "absence" itself to define the hole. There must be lines and borders which means that there is "something." In other words, Whole vs. Hole is not the difference between everything and nothing. Rather, it is Everything vs. Something is Missing.

All because of the W.

James Boba Fettfield
02-13-2006, 11:09 AM
But what about the other languages?

stillakid
02-13-2006, 11:22 AM
But what about the other languages?

was andere Sprachen?
qué otras idiomas?
ce qui d'autres langues?
che cosa altre lingue?

James Boba Fettfield
02-13-2006, 11:39 AM
Well, it only works in English with whole and hole. Say if we looked at the Spanish equivalents of whole and hole. I don't think the w theory holds true in that case.

You're not thinking fourth dimensionally. Wait, no, that quote doesn't fit this situation.

El Chuxter
02-13-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm waiting for the inevitable reference to Dubya.

Wait, I think by saying that, I just made the inevitable reference!

Bacta Beast
02-13-2006, 12:25 PM
Oh boy, this is gonna turn into a rancor pit thread real quick!!:nerv:

JimJamBonds
02-13-2006, 01:36 PM
I'm waiting for the inevitable reference to Dubya.

Wait, I think by saying that, I just made the inevitable reference!

I thought it was about G Dubs as well after reading the title and seeing who the author was. :D

Kidhuman
02-13-2006, 03:57 PM
I have to admit, I refrained from the reference multiple times.

Jargo
02-13-2006, 07:53 PM
but you're only applying earthly physics to the issue. there isn't a 'must' about anything unless we apply our human generated laws to nothing versus something. from a non earthly point of view it may well be possible to have nothing without having something around it. Lordy we've barely made it past ten planets in a small galaxy in a vast universe of other galaxies. I think must is a very tiny way of looking.
but then I'm talking through a veil of natural herbal substance smoke, so what do i know huh, WHAT? damn kids......

Kidhuman
02-13-2006, 09:04 PM
Waffles are everything. It begins with W too.

stillakid
02-13-2006, 09:45 PM
but you're only applying earthly physics to the issue. there isn't a 'must' about anything unless we apply our human generated laws to nothing versus something. from a non earthly point of view it may well be possible to have nothing without having something around it. Lordy we've barely made it past ten planets in a small galaxy in a vast universe of other galaxies. I think must is a very tiny way of looking.
but then I'm talking through a veil of natural herbal substance smoke, so what do i know huh, WHAT? damn kids......

Hmm, perhaps you misunderstood me. I'll try again. To have a "hole," you have to have some kind of boundry that defines it so that you know that it's a hole. Without boundries of some kind, you only just have nothing at all.


And as far as the other "Dubya" goes, honestly, it never occurred to me. Seriously!

Jargo
02-14-2006, 02:29 PM
but what if you had something and then for some reason that something just vanished completely for no apparent reason. what is left behind? a hole where it was or just nothing? like say the moon vanished in a magic puff of twisted logic that proved it didn't exist at all. is there space where it was or nothing? is space a somthing that surrounds it or a nothing? and how do you define a hole? I mean there's a hole in the ozone layer but you can't see the ozone layer so how do you know there's a hole or indeed even an ozone layer?
I'm being silly yes, but how do we know that the hole doesn't come first? our science and physics work say so 'here' but what about out there.... beyond our current realms of experience and knowledge. beyond our tiny orbit of existence. What if black holes are what's supposed to be. and all this stuff outside of it is just the raw materials to make whatever it is inside a black hole. maybe in some vague way a black hole is just a conduit to some other larger 'place' 'dimension' or 'thing' all of this stuff floating in what we call the universe could just be factory floor sweepings. dammit digressing again.

ok I'm leaving this thread because it's making me feel uneasy.

stillakid
02-14-2006, 03:51 PM
but what if you had something and then for some reason that something just vanished completely for no apparent reason. what is left behind? a hole where it was or just nothing? like say the moon vanished in a magic puff of twisted logic that proved it didn't exist at all. is there space where it was or nothing? is space a somthing that surrounds it or a nothing? and how do you define a hole? I mean there's a hole in the ozone layer but you can't see the ozone layer so how do you know there's a hole or indeed even an ozone layer?
I'm being silly yes, but how do we know that the hole doesn't come first? our science and physics work say so 'here' but what about out there.... beyond our current realms of experience and knowledge. beyond our tiny orbit of existence. What if black holes are what's supposed to be. and all this stuff outside of it is just the raw materials to make whatever it is inside a black hole. maybe in some vague way a black hole is just a conduit to some other larger 'place' 'dimension' or 'thing' all of this stuff floating in what we call the universe could just be factory floor sweepings. dammit digressing again.

ok I'm leaving this thread because it's making me feel uneasy.

Interesting thoughts. Author and scientist Brian Greene talks a little about "reality" in these terms. My comprehension of his examples barely exists itself, but he brings up a scenario in which something like the Moon doesn't truly exist until it is actually perceived by someone. In other words, it isn't there until you look at it. "Look" being the all inclusive for perception and/or measurement, it really is a theoretical impossibility to know. The very act of observation makes it impossible to determine whether something vanishes from existence once it is not being observed anymore. That said, there is some higher math that leads to that state of reality. Bizarre!


However, back to the hole itself, naturally there is always going to be "something" surrounding "it" (whatever "it" happens to be). So if you have the proper tools to measure the surrounding material (that surrounds "it") then yeah, you'd perceive a hole of some kind provided that the surrounding material wasn't maliable enough to rush in and fill the "hole" up before you got around to measuring it. But then again, when was the last time anything really POOFED! out of existence? Quarks or something like maybe, but we don't see big things behave like that too often.