Maynmaynmayn:

I’m talking about the emptiness inside the cup, a cup is empty because it contains Nothing. Water fills this Nothing inside the cup.

What does buda mean, Mayn? Please let us do the simple before we do the more complex please, as sunyata is a rather more complex idea than you are suggesting here.

You are talking about the emptiness of a thing called cup, and that is why it is a thing called empty cup, as opposed to nothing which is no-thing at all, or even the cup, empty or not.

Empty and nothing do not mean the same thing and can therefore not be used in place of each other.

As for the thing called water that you pour into the thing called empty cup, the water actually displaces a thing called air that was in the thing called cup that was supposedly empty. And if you had tested for the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup you would not have found zero amount of the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup, but an amount greater than zero of the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup.

budaatum:


What does buda mean, Mayn? Please let us do the simple before we do the more complex please, as sunyata is a rather more complex idea than you are suggesting here.

You are talking about the emptiness of a thing called cup, and that is why it is a thing called empty cup, as opposed to nothing which is no-thing at all, or even the cup, empty or not.

Empty and nothing do not mean the same thing and can therefore not be used in place of each other.

As for the thing called water that you pour into the thing called empty cup, the water actually displaces a thing called air that was in the thing called cup that was supposedly empty. And if you had tested for the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup you would not have found zero amount of the thing called air inside the thing called empty cuo, but an amount greater than zero of the thing called air inside the thing called empty cup.

I’m talking about the emptiness inside a cup.
Nothing here means the cup is devoid of contents, it’s empty, nothing is inside it. And I’m using it as an analogy.
Empty, void, chaos and nothing means same thing well as long as their etymology sha.


The air is within Nothing, the air is within emptiness. Lol
Inside the empty cup, you can remove air and everything in it and nothing will still be present.

Maynmaynmayn:

A thing means matter, entity or body.
Everything is within Nothing.

No Mayn, everything is not within nothing. Every thing known to exist is within a thing called space that occupies a specific thing called time.

Maynmaynmayn:

I think the definition of Nothing is the problem, when I separate No from thing.
I’m talking about nothing as absence of matter, body and entity, All things emerges from this Nothing.
Just as all drawings emerges within the canvas.
The blank and empty canvas has no beginning, but the drawings on the canvas has a beginning.

Indeed Mayn, definition is a problem.

The absence of a specific thing does not mean no-thing, and things usually do not just spring into existence our of nothingness. Before the drawings on the canvass had its beginning of you drawing drawings on it, a thing called canvass had to have had its own beginning and exist. If the canvass had not had its own beginning and come into existence you'd have no canvass to draw your drawings on.

Maynmaynmayn:
Yes suck everything away from the room if you can, you will be left with nothing, the nothing is there you only extracting something within it, air, atoms, entities, bodies, everything is within Nothing.

Everything is not within nothing. You are not within nothing. You are within a place probably called your home, in a place that has an address in a place called a country that is on a place called continent on a place called earth that is in a place called the universe. All those places that you are in are all things that can be identified, as opposed to no-thing, or no-place.

Technically, if "you suck everything away from the room if you can", what you'd have is a thing in the room that could be referred to as a vacuum, which is not no-thing, but a-thing, but let me confess that our current conversation has not yet evolved that far though I wish we could.

budaatum:


No Mayn, everything is not within nothing. Every thing known to exist is within a thing called space that occupies a specific thing called time.


Indeed Mayn, definition is a problem.

The absence of a specific thing does not mean no-thing, and things usually do not just spring into existence our of nothingness. Before the drawings on the canvass had its beginning of you drawing drawings on it, a thing called canvass had to have had its own beginning and exist. If the canvass had not had its own beginning and come into existence you'd have no canvass to draw your drawings on.



Everything is not within nothing. You are not within nothing. You are within a place probably called your home, in a place that has an address in a place called a country that is on a place called continent on a place called earth that is in a place called the universe. All those places that you are in are all things that can be identified, as opposed to no-thing, or no-place.

Technically, if "you suck everything away from the room if you can", what you'd have is a thing in the room that could be referred to as a vacuum, which is not no-thing, but a-thing, but let me confess that our current conversation has not yet evolved that far though I wish we could.

Space and time is within Nothing.
The absence of all things means no-thing, I never said “specific” in all my statements.
I’m not talking the canvass but the blank and empty state of the canvas.

If you remove the vacuum you will be left with nothing, the vacuum is within Nothing.

Maynmaynmayn:

this cup with shapes and form emerges from nothing. It’s a vessel created within Nothing.
Plato talk about form and matter.

Plato wrote about a thing called form and a thing called matter, and he differentiated it from no-thing, which has no-thing called form and a no-thing called matter, and Aristotle went even further than Plato and opposed Plato too
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/

If a thing has form and matter it is a-thing. And we can pick that thing up and put that thing down, and pour other things like water into them if their form and matter can hold things like water.

budaatum:


Plato wrote about a thing called form and a thing called matter, and he differentiated it from no-thing, which has no-thing called form and a no-thing called matter, and Aristotle went even further than Plato and opposed Plato too
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/

If a thing has form and matter it is a-thing. And we can pick that thing up and put that thing down, and pour other things like water into them if their form and matter can hold things like water.

Yes physical objects have form and matter.
The cup here is what i use as example of having form and shape, the vessel and not “nothing”. Nothing is formless and has no matter.

Even in the link you sent it maintained “nothing comes from nothing”

Nothingness is watery chaos.

Maynmaynmayn:


If you remove the vacuum you will be left with nothing, the vacuum is within Nothing.

If you remove the vacuum in a thing you will still be left with the thing you removed the vacuum from.

Even if you remove the room that you removed the vacuum from you'd still have the rest of the house you did not remove, and even if you remove the house you d still have the land the house was on.

Now, I guess you can somehow remove the land the house was on too, but I'm certain you'd still have something to indicate the land the house used to be on and that the room used to be in, like a thing called an address that has identifiable form and matter like it's coordinates, signifying a thing called location.

budaatum:


If you remove the vacuum in a thing you will still be left with the thing you removed the vacuum from.

Even if you remove the room that you removed the vacuum from you'd still have the rest of the house you did not remove, and even if you remove the house you d still have the land the house was on.

Now, I guess you can somehow remove the land the house was on too, but I'm certain you'd still have something to indicate the land the house used to be on and that the room used to be in, like a thing called an address that has identifiable form and matter like it's coordinates, signifying a thing called location.

This thing and vacuum are within Nothing.

Maynmaynmayn:

Nothing is formless and has no matter.

Voila!

And it is like gods and angels and devils and heaven and hell that do not have a form and do not consist of matter nor physical existence but only exist in the minds of those in whom such crap is created.

Maynmaynmayn:
Nothingness is watery chaos.

Now you've spoilt it!

Nothingness can not be a thing that is watery and chaotic!

Watery describes a state of a thing with form (watery) that is made up of a matter called oxygen and another matter called hydrogen, both of which have their own form and matter and are therefore things and can not therefore be not-things.

And chaos is a state that things are in, so can also not be not-thing. If you have not-thing, you will not have anything to be in a state that is chaotic.

Maynmaynmayn:

This thing and vacuum are within Nothing.

I guess I'd have to accept that's how you see things or understand or accept things to be.

Hopefully, you understand how I see, understand and accept things to be.

budaatum:

Voila!

And it is like gods and angels and devils and heaven and hell that do not have a form and do not consist of matter nor physical existence but only exist in the minds of those in whom such crap is created.


Now you've spoilt it!

Nothingness can not be a thing that is watery and chaotic!

Watery describes a state of a thing with form (watery) that is made up of a matter called oxygen and another matter called hydrogen, both of which have their own form and matter and are therefore things and can not therefore be not-things.

And chaos is a state that things are in, so can also not be not-thing. If you have not-thing, you will not have anything to be in a state that is chaotic.

Those are misconceptions.
If you look up on the origin of those words they are all around us..
Like i said in all mythologies it was chaos that began it, and chaos gave birth to gods.

I already defined watery chaos.
Chaos means formless and void, and the water means the deep.
adding it together it doesn’t connotes the everyday water made of matter.


Hesiod tells us that chaos is the origin of everything-the creation of the universe,

"Verily at the first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth,

the ever-sure foundation of all."

Chaos proceeded to give birth to the first Greek gods, the primordial deities, Hesiod portrays chaos as preceding all other elements and entities in the universe.

"In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was formless and empty.”

Formless and empty-this is the original meaning of the Greek word Chaos (khaos 'vast chasm, void) signifying a void or a state of nothingness. It does not imply a state of pandemonium or utter confusion as commonly understood today.

Maynmaynmayn:

Even in the link you sent it maintained “nothing comes from nothing”.

I think you have failed to understand what you read.

While the basic idea of hylomorphism is easy to grasp, much remains unclear beneath the surface. Aristotle introduces matter and form, in the Physics, to account for changes in the natural world, where he is particularly interested in explaining how substances come into existence even though, as he maintains, there is no generation ex nihilo, that is that nothing comes from nothing.

budaatum:


I guess I'd have to accept that's how you see things or understand or accept things to be.

Hopefully, you understand how I see, understand and accept things to be.

Yeah right.

budaatum:


I think you have failed to understand what you read.

Your screenshot is “creation from nothing”, I’m talking about “nothing from nothing”. No “creation” is needed.

Maynmaynmayn:

Your screenshot is “creation from nothing”, I’m talking about “nothing from nothing”. No “creation” is needed.

"Generation ex nihilo" means "nothing from nothing", but please tell me why you are choosing to not see the no before the "nothing from nothing" that you posted?

Does "no generation ex nihilo"" not mean that "something must come from something"?

Creation is after all not the only way that a something can come into existence. How about something evolving from something that exists before that something?

Can you have a big bang without a big thing to go big bang? And if you can, must it be a creator?

budaatum:


"Generation ex nihilo" means "nothing from nothing", but please tell me why you are choosing to not see the no before the "nothing from nothing" that you posted?

Does "no generation ex nihilo"" not mean that "something must come from something"?

Creation is after all not the only way that a something can come into existence. How about something evolving from something that exists before that something?

Can you have a big bang without a big thing to go big bang? And if you can, must it be a creator?

The “no” is part of the quote.
Generation ex nihilo, which translates to "generation out of nothing" in Latin, refers to the concept of something coming into existence without any preexisting material or cause. In various contexts, it can be interpreted as the idea that something can emerge or be created without any prior foundation or influence.

Maynmaynmayn:

I said space not spacetime.
Even space is within Nothing.

Space-time is SPACE and TIME so the space you are talking about is included in space-time.

Maynmaynmayn:

The “no” is part of the quote.
Generation ex nihilo, which translates to "generation out of nothing" in Latin, refers to the concept of something coming into existence without any preexisting material or cause. In various contexts, it can be interpreted as the idea that something can emerge or be created without any prior foundation or influence.

Generation ex nihilo, which translates to "generation out of nothing", is correct.

Now add the "no" and tell me what you understand by no generation ex nihilo.

Or lets try it in simple English.

Does "no cup on the table" mean "a cup is on the table"?

LordReed:


Space-time is SPACE and TIME so the space you are talking about is included in space-time.

In space we have 3d
In spacetime we have 4d with the time.

The space I’m talking about is where quantum fluatutates and both it and space are within Nothing.

budaatum:


Generation ex nihilo, which translates to "generation out of nothing", is correct.

Now add the "no" and tell me what you understand by no generation ex nihilo.

Or let try it in simple English.

Does "no cup on the table" mean "a cup is on the table"?

“Ex nihilo nihil fit" is a Latin phrase that translates to "out of nothing, nothing comes." It is a principle often attributed to Parmenides, an ancient Greek philosopher. The principle suggests that something cannot originate or arise from absolute nothingness.

In the context of philosophical and metaphysical discussions, "ex nihilo nihil fit" serves as a foundational principle. It asserts that there must be some kind of preexisting material or cause for something to come into existence or for change to occur. It rejects the notion of spontaneous or uncaused creation.

The principle aligns with the common understanding in various domains, including physics and everyday experience, that things have causes or origins. For example, in the realm of physics, the principle is reflected in the conservation laws, such as the law of energy conservation or the law of mass conservation. These laws suggest that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed; they can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.

Furthermore, "ex nihilo nihil fit" finds support in the scientific understanding of the origins of the universe. The prevailing Big Bang theory posits that the universe emerged from a singularity—an extremely dense and hot state—but does not explain the ultimate cause or origin of that singularity. Scientists continue to explore the origins of the singularity and the nature of existence itself.

In summary, "ex nihilo nihil fit" expresses the idea that there must be some existing foundation, material, or cause for something to come into being or for change to occur. It is a philosophical principle that aligns with our observations and scientific understanding of the world.“

Maynmaynmayn:


“Ex nihilo nihil fit" is a Latin phrase that translates to "out of nothing, nothing comes."

I seriously do not understand why you do not understand that “Ex nihilo nihil fit", means "no generation ex nihilo", just as "the cup is not empty" means "the cup has something in it".

Maynmaynmayn:

In space we have 3d
In spacetime we have 4d with the time.

The space I’m talking about is where quantum fluatutates and both it and space are within Nothing.

How can they be within nothing? You are saying here's something and calling it nothing. Nothing cannot exist because there's always something. If there is always something how can there be nothing.

You should go find some of Lawrence Krauss' videos on the subject so you can get a better idea.

budaatum:


I seriously do not understand why you do not understand that “Ex nihilo nihil fit", means "no generation ex nihilo", just as "the cup is not empty" means "the cup has something in it".

Exactly i just explained it to you..
I think the definition of “nothing” is the problem.
For there to be a being there must be a non being, our definition of non being is nothing.

I told you inside the emptiness of a cup there’s limitless potential. It’s not “empty”.

LordReed:


You are saying here's something and calling it nothing.

Funny, isn't it, my Lord.

LordReed:


How can they be within nothing? You are saying here's something and calling it nothing. Nothing cannot exist because there's always something. If there is always something how can there be nothing.

I think it is the definition of “nothing” that is the problem.
Nothing has alot of potential in it. Potential has energy.

“ The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the amount of energy in the universe minus the amount of gravity is exactly zero. In this kind of universe, matter could be created from nothing through a vacuum fluctuation, assuming such a zero-energy universe already is nothing. Such a universe would need to be flat, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error.”

budaatum:


Funny, isn't it, my Lord.

I think he's trying to use intuition. If everything is contained in something then space and time are also contained in something which he is calling nothing. While ignoring those vacuum fluctuations which persist even in the absence of space and time.

Maynmaynmayn:

Exactly i just explained it to you..
I think the definition of “nothing” is the problem.
For there to be a being there must be a non being, our definition of non being is nothing.

I told you inside the emptiness of a cup there’s limitless potential. It’s not “empty”.

The definition of nothing is only a problem because you want to make it a problem.

Why must "For there to be a being there must be a non being".

If I have a being called a million pounds in the pocket of my trousers, must there be a being called no million pounds in the pocket of my trousers too?

Is it true that for there to be a being called Mayn, there must be a non-being called Mayn?

Why? How? And where would this non-being called Mayn be exactly?

budaatum:


The definition of nothing is only a problem because you want to make it a problem.

Why must "For there to be a being there must be a non being".

If I have a being called a million pounds in the pocket of my trousers, must there be a being called no million pounds in the pocket of my trousers too?

Is it true that for there to be a being called Mayn, there must be a non-being called Mayn?

Why? How? And where would this non-being called Mayn be exactly?

Being here consist of matter.
Just like the blank canvas, all drawings are within this canvas.
Everything is within Nothingness.
It is from nothing that everything emerges.

Maynmaynmayn:

I think it is the definition of “nothing” that is the problem.
Nothing has alot of potential in it. Potential has energy.

“ The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the amount of energy in the universe minus the amount of gravity is exactly zero. In this kind of universe, matter could be created from nothing through a vacuum fluctuation, assuming such a zero-energy universe already is nothing. Such a universe would need to be flat, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error.”

What you might be failing to realise is the nothing cannot persist even for a second because of the vacuum fluctuations.

LordReed:


I think he's trying to use intution. If everything is contained in something and space and time are also contained in something which he is calling nothing. While ignoring those vacuum fluctuations which persist even in the absence of space and time.

Intuition? As in, not know what he's talking about and is just making it up and whinging it?

I wonder why he'd do that instead of consider what those who actually know what they are talking about because they have spent time studying literature on the topic and considered it.

He did introduce Sunyata, but he also once Intuited that he was sitting on his buda in Budapest. Lol.

budaatum:


Intuition? As in, not know what he's talking about and is just making it up and whinging it?

I wonder why he'd do that instead of consider what those who actually know what they are talking about because they have spent time studying literature on the topic and considered it.

He did introduce Sunyata, but he also once Intuited that he was sitting on his buda in Budapest. Lol.

LoL.

LordReed:


What you might be failing to realise is the nothing cannot persist even for a second because of the vacuum fluctuations.

The vacuum fluctuations are appearing and going back to nothing, they arise from nothing and will go back to nothing. That’s why I brought up the concept of zero.
Our idea of zero comes from india which has further origin.

Those vacuum fluctuations are the potentials within nothingness.