Something and Nothing

Reference: BEGINNING

Beginning means a beginning of something. This something continues in one form or another until it ends. From beginning to end something is manifested. From the end of a cycle till the beginning of the next cycle nothing is manifested.

Beginning starts with the manifestation of something. A “something” can be the flimsiest of thought or the heaviest of heavenly body. It can be any manifestation whatsoever.

Space and time are abstract dimensions representing the extent and duration of manifestation. When “something” manifests successively till the end of the cycle, we get the sense of TIME. Time depends on a primary manifestation persisting over a duration. Therefore, Time would begin with the beginning and would continue until the end.

Persistence of the manifestation of something brings about the sense of TIME.

When there is no longer any manifestation, the cycle has come to an end. From the end till another beginning, there is no manifestation, and no time either. There is simply NOTHING.

NOTHING is “absence of manifestation.”

Science is a study of manifestations. The primary manifestation seems to have the aspects of energy and matter. The secondary manifestation seems to be space and time. So far science has not grappled directly with the absence of manifestation, or NOTHING.

Science presupposes SOMETHING to be there. It is looking for a “cause” that is supposed to exist before the beginning of the universe. That “cause” would still be something to be studied by science. Thus, that “cause” may very well be considered a part of the universe. Scientifically, before the beginning would be NOTHING.

Science cannot go into the beginning of universe as long as it presupposes SOMETHING to exist before the beginning.

Logic and Mathematics are based upon thought. Without thought there can be neither logic nor mathematics. Thus, logic and mathematics presuppose thought to be there.

Thought is just what is being employed in these essays. Thought is not NOTHING. Thought is “something” that would have to manifest at the beginning for logic and mathematics to be there. Therefore, neither logic nor mathematics can go before the beginning of universe.  However,

Thought may look upon “before the beginning” as “potential of manifestation.”

The Big Bang Theory seems to confirm a great deal of observations; and it comes quite close to describing the beginning but it does not address the beginning itself.

To describe the beginning of the universe then, one may have to speculate upon the nature of NOTHING.

And that would give us another universe.

.

• Maria  On November 2, 2011 at 6:56 PM

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to differentiate between null and zero, which would be two different kinds of “nothing.” The one rests on noticing that something is not there (presupposing that something was or could or should be there) and a nothingness that is not dependent on comparison at all. i.e. pre-dichotomy.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2011 at 7:19 PM

In mathematics, “null” means “absence of any value.” For example a null set would be represented as [ ].

Whereas, “zero” is regarded to have a value, because it is used as a reference point from which to measure other values. For example, [0] would be a set containing zero. It is not the same as a null set.

What you are suggesting is fine. But do you think we really need to make this differentiation at this elementary level? Can we use it later at a more sophisticated level?

We are not yet done with this series of essays, and I intend to use the ideas you present.

.

• Maria  On November 3, 2011 at 2:49 AM

No perhaps not in this essay, I figured you would have it in mind and wondered why you hadn’t mentioned it. That explains.

• vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 5:19 AM

Maria, to tell you truthfully, the idea of using null and zero to further differentiate nothing hadn’t crossed my mind. So, thanks for bringing it up.

By the way, zero is a very important concept as it leads to the idea of the set of WHOLE NUMBERS and INTEGERS. Please see

.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM

It is inconsistent to think that there can be anything before the beginning, such as, Cause, because then the beginning would shift to the beginning of Cause.

How does the Cause begin?

The only answer is that the cause begins with the effect. the two must be simultaneous. Both cause and effect would be part of the same manifestation. Both spiritual and physical would be part of the same manifestation.

Any dichotomy would be part of the same manifestation.

.

• 2ndxmr  On January 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM

“Beginnings” are a time related apparency. Time is a dimension of this universe but need not apply to anything but this universe. Outside this universe there could simply be isness. Consciousness does not require time; consciousness could easily be pre-universe.

Perhaps the origin of consciousness is un-knowable. But the existence of a pre-universe is assumable – since we are in one now and have an idea of its age – so there had to be an initial somethingness.

In the case of a no-time pre-universe, what would a “somethingness” be? God? Just as good an explanation as this: instability. Consciousness awakening could create an instability. It might be a quality of consciousness that it needs a co-terminal.

Yin-yang, big bang.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2012 at 6:08 PM

There is mental time that applies to considerations, which are part of the mental universe.

If there is any other universe, it is part of the mental universe. Anything outside this universe would be part of the mental universe.

Consciousness (awareness) is part of the mental universe in my opinion. Please see

THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE

Let’s discuss any inconsistencies that might appear here before going any farther. Let’s establish complete understanding of Axiom #1 of Scientology as presented by Mr. Hubbard.

AXIOM #1: Life is basically a static.

DEFINITION: a life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

I would modify Axiom #1 to:

AXIOM #1: Life is basically static.

by changing “a static” to simply “static.”

.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Hubbard’s STATIC simply brings the KINETIC of the universe into a clear focus. This “static” lies on the physical plane of matter, energy, space and time.

If we look at the abstraction underlying the physical, we find mental matter (considerations), mental energy (interaction among considerations), mental space (scope of considerations), and mental time (evolution of considerations). We would then also find a “mental static.” You got the idea.

Are there further layers of abstraction underlying this mental layer?

Maybe.

.

• vinaire  On January 22, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Hubbard’s looks at STATIC as an individuality (beingness), which acts upon the KINETICS of the universe (beingness) of matter, energy, space and time. Here STATIC-KINETIC is a dichotomy. I find an assumed inconsistency here.

First of all, any dichotomy is the property of a universe. Thus, I do not see STATIC not being part of the universe. A zero is as much a part of a scale as are the numbers. Thus, absence of mest (matter, energy, space and time) is a reference point, which is very much a part of the universe. Please see Space, Time & Knowledge

Secondly, all beingness is part of the universe too. Please see THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE.

Thus, Hubbard has a theory only about this universe, and it does not go beyond this universe. This is fine, but it should be recognized as such.

A universe holds together because the fundamental postulates are proved by their existence, even when they are arbitrary. But, the universe does not contain the answer to existence or non-existence, or to any other dichotomy. The universe is incapable of looking at itself as a whole, else it would destroy itself.

.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Would SOMETHING and NOTHING be part of the same manifestation then?

Yes, of course.

Then where does the above essay stand?

Good question. The answer is unknowable. 🙂

.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Then NOTHING could be studied by science just as SOMETHING is.

Yes, I think so. We see NOTHING as an absence of SOMETHING. Furthermore, we see ZERO (nothing) as a reference point of numbers (somethings).

We may further differentiate among somethings. For example, we can differentiate among numbers. Can we have many nothings and then differentiate among them?

Yes, we may differentiate “absence of tigers” from “absence of elephants.” And if we are looking at zero as an absence of all numbers, the we may also categorize any number to be just a number.

Thus, if we want to look at NOTHING as an absolute then we should look at SOMETHING as an absolute too (zero versus the fact of a number).

So, what is beyond SOMETHING and NOTHING, or beyond existence and non-existence?

Well, that is unknowable. 🙂

.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I think we can now look at the difference between null and zero, a question that Maria raised earlier.

Zero would be the absence of some specific something. For example. zero on a scale would represent the absence of values presented on that scale. It would not mean an absence of that scale.

Null, on the other hand would mean the absence of the scale itself (see the example above).

Thus, “null” would take us to a deeper level of abstraction, whereas, zero keeps us at the same level of abstraction.

.

• vinaire  On January 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM

The lowest level of “null” is what I am calling “unknowable,” because one can keep going lower and lower forever like seeking the last digit in the decimal representation of an irrational number.

.

• vinaire  On September 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Both ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ have meaning relative to each other. What is beyond both of them is unknowable.

Contemplation of unknowable is very interesting because it is beyond the dichotomy of knowable-unknowable.

Words, and even visualization, simply fails.

.

• vinaire  On August 18, 2014 at 10:37 AM

The concept of Static in Scientology is derived from the SOMETHING – NOTHING dichotomy. Beginning starts with the manifestation of something. A “something” can be the flimsiest of thought or the heaviest of heavenly body. It can be any manifestation whatsoever. NOTHING is “absence of manifestation.” Static introduces some speculation on what NOTHING is.

However, I prefer the dichotomy of AWARENESS – NO AWARENESS because it is more basic. Awareness is needed before one can know that something is there. In my view beginning starts with the manifestation of awareness. Awareness could be the awareness of beingness as Static, or the awareness of the whole universe. NO AWARENESS is “absence of awareness”. It would provide boundary to the universe we are aware of.

The whole idea of “absence of awareness” is to provide a reference point from which to measure awareness.

.