[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /zzz/ - 2185



File: 1456462201669.png (1.1 MB, 300x300, qqqq.png)

No.2185

Hey guys!
People often describe or think of nothingness / void, or death, as pitch black? In fantasy, they often say this even about the night.
What do you think, is nothingness black? I recently started to think of it as noise or chaos. Just like the sky seems to be empty and black, but turns out to be a colorful bunch of stuff, just very faint.
Nothingness doesn't really have attributes anyway. Should it have, it would be "something, with attributes". Something "without attributes" still has this very attribute, so if you strip even that, you're left with something you cannot say or know anything about. Pure damn chaos; and that would look a lot more like noise than pitch black, i'd wager.

  No.2187

Only matter can have physical properties. By definition, a perfect vacuum wouldn't be anything other than nothing. Space is not a perfect vacuum as it likely has accelerating expansion.
I don't think the lack of matter has any properties as far as color or pattern is concerned, but there's a research group coming out of NASA that claims to have strong evidence that suggests antimatter is plaid.

  No.2188

>>2187
i'm not really curious about anything related to physics. i'm curious about how lainons imagine nothingness. this is not a thread about space and vacuum and null sets and other well defined stuff, but about nothingness. physics and physical theories are totally irrelevant for the thread.

  No.2189

File: 1456470415471.png (168.76 KB, 150x200, EgyptianAfternoonCigarettes.jpg)

But nothing isn't chaos. Noise is something, in state of disorder. In concept, nothing is more free of chaos than nothing, there is nothing to disturb from order to begin with. What room is cleaner than an empty one?

Void is the colour of sleep spent nondreaming. Void is the memories of the blackout drunk. Nothing is only known because you can reference points of something around it.

Nothing is nil.

  No.2190

>>2185
Lack of light is a subset of lack of everything.
Lack of light on your photoreceptors is what we call black.
So nothingness is black.
Case closed.

  No.2191

>>2185
I think chaos is still something. If you think about it, ultimate chaos, like heat death, is the distribution of all matter and energy everywhere. No matter where you go there's always something, even if it's all dissipated. Given the state of the universe now, matter is orderly and concentrated in certain areas, with vast amounts of nothing in between.

Gonna be less scientific here...

When I'm stimulated in some way (e.g., recently took a hallucinogen or just anxious) and lie down to rest or go to sleep, for the first half hour or so my field of vision is filled with somewhat chaotic harsh and colorful noise, and occasionally contorting shapes; this carries over into my REM sleep sometimes. I tend to think of this "stuff" as something, even if it's in a vast field of nothing.

In the opposite case, when I'm very relaxed and ready to go to sleep, my vision is pretty blank, which very soft, static, dull noise; basically nothing is there.

So both aesthetically and scientifically I think that greater order requires greater areas of nothingnesss, while greater chaos requires less.

  No.2192

>>2189
that's very serial.
>nothing is more free of chaos than nothing, there is nothing to disturb from order to begin with
nothing is more chaotic than nothing, there is nothing to keep order to begin with
whichever i think of first is right, so they are basically the same.

>Nothing is only known because you can reference points of something around it.

and so nothing looks like it's surroundings. anything that is behind or instead the expected thing. when you have nothing in your hand, you see a hand.
we don't seem to disagree, as sleep spent nondreaming doesn't imply either noise or black. thanks for the reply.

>>2190
thanks for the reply. a friendly reminder that you're quoting scientific stuff, and in science the case is never closed.

>>2191
well, i tend to think of chaos as a "lack of laws". this would mean something you can observe all you want and still be unable to see any pattern. however, this itself would be a pattern, so i eliminate even this. that leaves me with an inability to say anything valid about chaos.

matter and energy being evenly distributed everywhere is a pretty straightforward law or observation, very unlike what i described, and so is a specific kind of noise or blank vision.
when i say chaos looks like noise, i mean a noise that can be any kind of noise, or pure blackness, or pure whiteness, or anything. i can't say it's just blackness or just noise. i can't say anything about it. it seems to share this quality with both nothingness, and with 'everything'.

  No.2194

>>2192
>you're quoting scientific stuff, and in science the case is never closed.

Not that lain, but this is pretty retarded in this context; We process light through our retina, when there is no light, our brain registers that input from the retina as "black". If your brain was fuarrrked up and you saw everything inverted then blackness might ''seem'' white, but it will still have the "value" of "black".

If you meant ''objectively'' what colour is "nothing", then human perceptions in general are irrelevant and the discussion around it will just be navel-gazing.

  No.2195

At the point where nothing is, everything is. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything, because our universe is inherently paradoxical.

  No.2197

>>2194
yeah yeah, don't differentiate between theory and reality, don't think about stuff, just watch another lecture on youtube with all the facts and be boring. great idea.

>>2195
which one is the consequence of the other (if any) in your view?
everything=nothing, or the paradoxical nature?

  No.2199

>>2197
Because the universe is a self-contained system, it did not create itself, and so it was created with mechanisms outside of the universe. However, I wouldn't be able to say if you could classify this outside force as something or nothing, as the outside force is likely non-binary (where our universe is binary) and so no true conception of it can be made. Which means whatever created the universe is of no consequence to me or anyone else.

To put it in other words, when nothing was created, something was created at the exact same instant, (they are indeed the same concept at their endpoint) because of the binary nature of the universe (one thing on its own cannot exist in this universe, because everything must have a reference point).

  No.2200

>>2192
No, no, chaos has order on a large scale. In a chaotic system, when you look at the details, everything appears to be random, but when you iterate the system enough times, a pattern does emerge which is self-similar, and it's all dependent on the starting conditions. This is what a fractal is. It's called a strange attractor, and you can also think of it as a probability distribution using complex numbers. In the center, where the highest density is, the numbers are stable. Near the edges of the fractal, the function goes to infinity.

If you view our universe as a strange attractor, you can see that it conforms to this idea. Our universe is infinite in a finite way, because it conforms to the strange attractor dynamics. At infinity, we don't know what happens. This is the theory behind black holes and the event horizon.

There is no true randomness. If the entire universe is a strange attractor, then all parts are self-similar to this attractor, and so all parts have a 'pattern', and all parts are connected. In this way, you can also compare the universe to a hologram. If you cut up a hologram into a billion pieces, each piece will contain information about the entire hologram, only from a different perspective.

  No.2202

>>2197
>>2199
>>2200

Er, I will edit what I said regarding the pertinence of the source of the universe to human beings, and say that it is quite pertinent to our existence.

What I meant to say is that everything that this force outside of the universe is, everything in this universe isn't. So it can only be conceived of in absence. This relates somewhat to your concept of 'nothing'. Nothing is everything, which is the point where the universe both begins and ends, which is the source of this universe.

  No.2208

>>2200
whoever named that kind of stuff chaos theory has been, regardless of his initial conditions, a bloody fool.

  No.2209

It's impossible for 'nothing' to exist, because nothing is non-existence itself.

  No.2210

>>2209
that's kinda wrong
you can't exchange the two, let me show an example
>nothing changed
>non-existence changed
i'd argue that you can't pin down whether nothing exists or not, and neither can you pin down anything else about it. it breaks every dichotomy you throw at it, or not. which is very reminiscent of everything and anything. actually, these three could be the same.
anyway, lots of folks here don't seem to care about ideas, only fact... i mean dogmas. boooring.

  No.2213

>>2210
The thinking is that Ideas are a product of a lack of data, and exist only when one is not certain of the answer to a question. But ideas are really just another form of calculating probabilities, which is all data is and can be. A "fact" is a concept which can't exist because we are experiencing a dynamic system that changes with observation.

However, there are certain ideas that should attract more consideration than others, and which I believe are the psuedo-universal ideas, those contemplated by man for our entire history, which can also be called Dogmas but not fact.These are aspects of our dynamical system which tend to reoccur with a certain probability. This is what you get into when you talk about 'nothing'. You reach nothing as a concept and you see... Something. It's a paradox. You've reached the inherent nature of the universe, and you can see that all such binary concepts end in a paradox, and the universe is reflected in everything that exists within itself in a similar way. Very much like what a hologram is.

  No.2214

File: 1457313833664.png (30.05 KB, 200x88, Untitled.png)

>>2190
Pretty much this.
We typically allude to "nothing" as black, as that is exactly what we see when we see nothing (IE: Closing your eyes). So, we can reasonably, although incorrectly, state that "nothing" is black, and blacks are nothing.

  No.2215

>>2199
>one thing on its own cannot exist in this universe
One cannot have a single thing without its opposite.

  No.2219

>>2213
a weird lainon.
what is your first paragraph? fact, dogma, law, data, or something that exists?

i can't take people seriously when they say hologram, paradox, binary and universe in the same paragraph. sorry.

>>2214
indeed, that is reasonable. and just like you said, incorrect as all things reasonable.
i wonder, where or when will pragmatic thinkers reach a point where they realize that the ideas they base their pragmatic methods or methods of methods on are unreasonable.

>>2215
sounds like a dogma
someone else could argue that "one can have a single thing without its opposite". although that's pretty ironic considering what you've said, this means that someone could have a different view than yours, and it contradicts yours, thus you are compelled to defend it. however, the only way you can "win" is by an objective reality matching yours and not that of your opponents, which requires an objective reality. dogmas are hard, you have my respect for trying to hold one anyway.

i know how ironic this is; speaking has its drawbacks

  No.2228

>>2219
>>what is your first paragraph?

What is your question, exactly? I realize my response was a little disordered, my apologies. I shouldn't be on lain when I only have a small time-period.

  No.2230

>>2228
oh no, that was meant to be a pondery question. you said something about facts, but the way you said it was like stating a fact. but that, considering what you were stating, would make your statement attack itself.
also, one could argue that facts, data, laws of nature are all just human concepts

and you used an 'unlucky' set of words in a post, which i personally see too often in posts made by people who are high. not like that means anything anyway.

  No.2232

>>2230
Well, no, I was stating an opinion, a subjective viewpoint.

Because you have no conception outside of a human subjective perspective then yes, you could argue that. I think we agree, overall.

You have assumed both that I was stating what i thought were facts and that I am/was high. I was not high, but in any case you should check your assumptions. They usually tank an argument when they have no probabilistic basis.

  No.2233

>>2215
An apple has many opposite concepts, but none of them really fit.
In the relm of the mind, many things exist without opposites.
In the material world... I dunno, shapes transform? I guess you could say there is no force without an opposite force.