Something (non-duality) out of Nothing (also non-duality).

[r6r6]

What is occupying the space that seems like nothing?

You dont specify the space you refering to and that can vary just as the answer can. Apparrently you did not see my post #25 where I clearly answer that question.


Seemingly empty lot between two houses is filled with air molicules, neutrinos and photons to name a few.


Seemingly empty space between planets has metors, photons, neutrinos etc

Is non-occupied space a thing?

If "thin" is a some-thing then I take that as to mean and occupied space. So any truly not occupied space existence is not of an occupied space thing but of a Metaphysical-1, mind/intelllect/conceptual "thing".

What is space, from where does it come?

Two primary kinds of space;


1} occupied ex Univerese, and,


2} non-occupied ---truly non-occupied---.


Both 1 and 2 above exist eternally and not sure you would think otherwise, i.e. why do you ask the question "where does it come from". If they both exist eternally then the question you ask is irrelevant, moot, etc.


Phyiscal energy ergo reality cannot be created nor destroyed is cosmic law/principle discovered by scientist in late 1800's.


I transpose that as occupied space so as to include Metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) and Metaphysical-4 Dark Energy )(.


Hope that satisfactorially answers your questions.



We live in one finite, occupied space Universe.

Finite = integrity i.e. systemic and structural ---stable structure minimally requires threeness---

Infinite = lack of integrity i.e. no structure, no system

Since our occupied space Universe/Uni-V-erse is finite, then the can exist one rational, logical common sense speculative intuition as to what exists beyond the finite, Universe.

And that is macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space.

The empty lot between two houses is not truly empty{ non-occupied space } this old news that Ive made clear for years here at SF. That seeminly empty space is filled with air molecules and photons neutrinos etc.


The space between planets, galaxies etc is filled with photons, neutrinos etc.


The space beyond finite, integral Universe is the only truly non-occupied space.


This is such simple, rational, logical common sense yet so many make difficult, convolute and obfuscate what is actually pretty simple.


Consciousness is a minimum twoness and that means a line{s}-of-relationship between two more occupied space phenomena.


Physical/energy aka reality is just Observed Time { sine wave patterned frequencies /\/\/\/ } i.e. quantised and quantifed phenomena as fermions ergo matter and bosons forces between matter particles.


Gravity and Dark Energy is not quantised nor quantified ergo they remain outside of beyond physical/energy/reality ergo Metaphysical- 3 and 4 repsectively.

All else other than what Ive laid above, and many times over a few years here, is just mind games that do not follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

.......Space(>*<) i (>*<)Space........

Originally Posted by r6r6r

You dont specify ....

Yes, but I was thinking more along the lines of the empty vacuum of space. The answer I was thinking of was quantum foam. Which when it comes down to it is as much of a metaphysical thing as it is a physical thing. It seems to have one foot in potentiality and one in manifested physical reality, if one believes in the latter.

There is spacetime, not just space, and I am not so sure it exists eternally. The answer depends I think on what one means when they say exists. They may exist eternally as information in the akashic records, yet, what it means to exist as physical reality is much more nuanced. Personally, I suspect that spacetime as well as matter are created by consciousness from that information in those records and exist as a reality only within that consciousness, a virtual reality. Spacetime and matter then are continuously created and experienced by consciousness on the fly, similar to the spacetime and matter on one's television screen.

In the 1800 it seemed like settled science that energy is conserved, however, with the advent of general relativity in the 1920s, that is no longer the case. The expansion of the universe with a constant energy density of the vacuum of space would make some physicists argue that energy is in fact continuously being created, while others would say that if one takes into account the energy of gravitational fields, the net energy of the universe is and remains at zero. IDK who is right, but I tend to favor the latter as it just feels right.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com...not-conserved/

As far as I know, information however, is conserved. Some (many?) physicists believe that information is more primary then energy and energy arises from information. I tend to agree with that assessment as nobody has ever seen energy, all we really have is information which follows mathematical rules. You might think of energy similar to electronic funds. We transfer dollars all over the world with computers, we change them into other currencies and back again, but if fact there are no actual dollars moving around and no dollars being transformed into euros or yen, it is just information about virtual currencies that is being moved and transformed.

Perhaps then, similarly, spacetime and matter don’t have a physical existence in the sense we think they do, it is really just information about spacetime and matter being represented in consciousness that we are experiencing. Where, when, and what, are all virtual creations within consciousness. Of course even if one believes in an independent, objective, material reality that exists independent of consciousness, it is still cut off from our experience. What we experience would still be a virtual reality created within the brain as it interprets the information contained in the firing and non firing pattern of the nerves coming from the senses. So no matter how one looks at it, the space, time, and matter we experience as reality, is in fact a virtually reality construct of the mind.

In other words, it would seem it is we who are making some things out of no things, while following the cosmic rules of information processing in order to do so. It is our desire to explore the Tao that causes us to give rise to and experience the myriad forms. Yet the forms are all just dancing straw dogs, representations and metaphors of the deeper mysteries contained within the Tao.

[r6r6]

The answer I was thinking of was quantum foam. Which when it comes down to it is as much of a metaphysical thing as it is a physical thing.

See my Metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) and Metaphysical-4 Dark Energy )( as the fundamental fabric of space, and results in Observed Time aka physical/energy aka reality and is directly associated with sine-wave pattern frequencies /\/\/\/ we find with most all fermions and bosons.

That there is spacetime, not just space, and I am not so sure it exists eternally.

To believe occupied space something can come from truly non-occupied space nothing is an irrational mind-game folly pathway aka bubble-gum for the mind.

The answer depends I think on what one means when they say exists.

Exists for what they are.



Metaphsyical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts ergo concepts of Space is not and occupied space nor a non-occupied space. Concepts exists as concepts, nothing more nothing less.


Ex think of triangle. So how much does it weigh? In general, that is a meaning question. Concepts do not have mass, color, spin, charge etc.



If finite occupied space Universe expands, then it expands into non-occupied space, and that is the primary diffference between a true non-occupied space { Metaphysical-2 } and a Metaphysical-1 concept.


Universe does not expand into a concept. Do you understand the differrence? Can you make the distinction?


Heres what you need to know. it is said that energy curves space. Well space has to be a medium and that medium { fabric } ---not a concept--- is Gravity and Dark Energy.


So what Ive been laying out clearly over last couple of years, or more, is that inside the toroidal tube is the sine-wave patterned frequency, as defined numerially by my 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 etc and those trinities correspond very well with all known fermionic catagories.


3 kinds of electron and 3 kinds of anti-electron


3 kinds of neutrino and 3 kinds of anti-neutrino.


3 kinds of quark that come in 18 quark flavors and an 18 anti-quark flavors.


So Gravity ( ) ---as the medium/fabric of space, in the space-time scenario-- is the outer geodesic surface of the torus tube and Dark Energy )( is the inner surface geodesic of same torus tube.


The sine-wave patterned frequency /\/\/\ is inside the tube.


So is the geodesic curved by the energy { /\/\/ | or is the energy a resultant of the Gravity and Dark Energy reaching a limit of curvature or whatever and makes direct trajectory inversion, then back out the surface?




..."With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what space time would look like at these small scales, because existing theories of gravity do not give accurate predictions in that regime.



....Therefore, any of the developing theories of quantum gravity may improve our understanding of quantum foam as they are tested. However, observations of radiation from nearby quasars by Floyd Stecker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center have placed strong experimental limits on the possible violations of Einstein's special theory of relativity implied by the existence of quantum foam.


....Thus experimental evidence so far has given a range of values in which scientists can test for quantum foam."....
https://www.definitions.net/definition/Quantum+foam



...

Originally Posted by r6r6r

See my Metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) and Metaphysical-4 Dark Energy )( as the fundamental fabric of space, and results in Observed Time aka physical/energy aka reality and is directly associated with sine-wave pattern frequencies /\/\/\/ we find with most all fermions and bosons.





To believe occupied space something can come from truly non-occupied space nothing is an irrational mind-game folly pathway aka bubble-gum for the mind.




Exists for what they are.



Metaphsyical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts ergo concepts of Space is not and occupied space nor a non-occupied space. Concepts exists as concepts, nothing more nothing less.


Ex think of triangle. So how much does it weigh? In general, that is a meaning question. Concepts do not have mass, color, spin, charge etc.



If finite occupied space Universe expands, then it expands into non-occupied space, and that is the primary diffference between a true non-occupied space { Metaphysical-2 } and a Metaphysical-1 concept.


Universe does not expand into a concept. Do you understand the differrence? Can you make the distinction?


Heres what you need to know. it is said that energy curves space. Well space has to be a medium and that medium { fabric } ---not a concept--- is Gravity and Dark Energy.


So what Ive been laying out clearly over last couple of years, or more, is that inside the toroidal tube is the sine-wave patterned frequency, as defined numerially by my 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 etc and those trinities correspond very well with all known fermionic catagories.


3 kinds of electron and 3 kinds of anti-electron


3 kinds of neutrino and 3 kinds of anti-neutrino.


3 kinds of quark that come in 18 quark flavors and an 18 anti-quark flavors.


So Gravity ( ) ---as the medium/fabric of space, in the space-time scenario-- is the outer geodesic surface of the torus tube and Dark Energy )( is the inner surface geodesic of same torus tube.


The sine-wave patterned frequency /\/\/\ is inside the tube.


So is the geodesic curved by the energy { /\/\/ | or is the energy a resultant of the Gravity and Dark Energy reaching a limit of curvature or whatever and makes direct trajectory inversion, then back out the surface?




..."With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what space time would look like at these small scales, because existing theories of gravity do not give accurate predictions in that regime.



....Therefore, any of the developing theories of quantum gravity may improve our understanding of quantum foam as they are tested. However, observations of radiation from nearby quasars by Floyd Stecker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center have placed strong experimental limits on the possible violations of Einstein's special theory of relativity implied by the existence of quantum foam.


....Thus experimental evidence so far has given a range of values in which scientists can test for quantum foam."....
https://www.definitions.net/definition/Quantum+foam



...

Just so you will know (although I highly doubt you will admit or agree with me )

When you hear the term "frequency " being used it is not ment in the same context as musical frequency

Just like in neurology when scientists refer to Alpha Waves beta waves theta waves /Tech
They're simply borrowing a word that's already has a particular value in the average person's vocabulary and I'm sure this was done unknowingly.

What is meant by frequency in this particular scenario is a completion looks like a rotation for something that leaves and comes back to the starting point again and then leaves and comes back to the starting point again and it does that a specific amount of times and that is referred to as the frequency or the amount of times this phenomenon happens.

But unfortunately the most popular use for the word frequency in general Society is when talking about oscillating pressure waves and so it has caused a lot of confusion especially in the New Age movement. And let's not forget that when discussing oscillating pressure waves which are generally measured with "HZ" (the amount of oscillations within 1 second ie 24 HZ is 24 oscillations within one second)
It too is shrouded in symbolism that is not necessarily part of reality meaning although we call it a sine wave and show a graph or picture like this 〰️ the reality is it's not a wave like an ocean it is like I previously stated more of a oscillation or a pressure compressing followed by a pressure expanding but that's virtually impossible to draw a picture of especially when trying to keep it simple drawing diagram but just keep that in mind for future thought.

[r6r6]

/\/\/\/\/ = Euclidean version of non-eculideean sine-wave patterned frequencies, that, are is associated with most every fermionc particle known to humans is truth and fact, to best of my knowledge.

If you dont want to believe it, that, is you choice.

https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/...va/wavebasics/

..."Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by a broad range of wavelengths and frequencies, each associated with a specific intensity (or amplitude) and quantity of energy. This interactive tutorial explores the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and energy, and enables the visitor to adjust the intensity of the radiation and to set the wave into motion"....


https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vid...oidal-signals/

..."All sinusoidal signals have the same general shape, but they are not identical. The three characteristics that separate one sinusoid from another are amplitude, frequency, and phase."...

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

it is like I previously stated more of a oscillation or a pressure compressing followed by a pressure expanding but that's virtually impossible to draw a picture of especially when trying to keep it simple drawing diagram but just keep that in mind for future thought.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

/\/\/\/\/ = Euclidean version of non-eculideean sine-wave patterned frequencies, that, are is associated with most every fermionc particle known to humans is truth and fact, to best of my knowledge.

If you dont want to believe it, that, is you choice.

https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/...va/wavebasics/

..."Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by a broad range of wavelengths and frequencies, each associated with a specific intensity (or amplitude) and quantity of energy. This interactive tutorial explores the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and energy, and enables the visitor to adjust the intensity of the radiation and to set the wave into motion"....


https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vid...oidal-signals/

..."All sinusoidal signals have the same general shape, but they are not identical. The three characteristics that separate one sinusoid from another are amplitude, frequency, and phase."...

Perhaps I wasn't clear on exactly what I was talking about
I was referring to the belief that everything is a vibration and that we are made of vibration and so on and so forth and how that is a misunderstanding. I was not talking about electromagnetic radiation which does not discredit my previous statement neither does the second link about sine wave formation because like I said that's a means of explaining and demonstrating on a two-dimensional piece of paper but it is not actually the way sound operates in the real world.

[r6r6]

Words can have many differrent definitions an especially in consideration of the context in which their used. And by context, I means various sciences;

1} physics of sound,

2} physics of EMRaditions,

3} physics of fermionic particles,

4} physics of bosoic particles,

and the list goes on and on.


Vibration = frequency and there exists variious kinds of vibration/frequencies. Sound has and associate sine-wave patterned frequency when it is just one pitch. Now those interested have to go grasp all of the deffinitions associated with pitch.


My guess is that sound is composed of many differrent pitches, and that each of those pitches ---in of themselves-- denote a frequency.


Perhaps I have not been clear on every thing Ive stated cause you apparrently believed I stated something incorrectly or not true or what exactly, I'm not clear on.


Please point out any comment by that was made in error. That is one of the ways we all learn, is by making error.

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

Perhaps I wasn't clear on exactly what I was talking.about
I was referring to the belief that everything is a vibration and that we are made of vibration and so on and so forth and how that is a misunderstanding. I was not talking about electromagnetic radiation which does not discredit my previous statement neither does the second link about sine wave formation because like I said that's a means of explaining and demonstrating on a two-dimensional piece of paper but it is not actually the way sound operates in the real world.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Words can have many differrent definitions an especially in consideration of the context in which their used. And by context, I means various sciences;

1} physics of sound,

2} physics of EMRaditions,

3} physics of fermionic particles,

4} physics of bosoic particles,

and the list goes on and on.


Vibration = frequency and there exists variious kinds of vibration/frequencies. Sound has and associate sine-wave patterned frequency when it is just one pitch. Now those interested have to go grasp all of the deffinitions associated with pitch.


My guess is that sound is composed of many differrent pitches, and that each of those pitches ---in of themselves-- denote a frequency.


Perhaps I have not been clear on every thing Ive stated cause you apparrently believed I stated something incorrectly or not true or what exactly, I'm not clear on.


Please point out any comment by that was made in error. That is one of the ways we all learn, is by making error.

Sound can be several different frequencies together at the same time and in constant fluctuation but it can also be just 1 frequency

Technically sound is anything that your hearing can pick up on which is normally in the frequency range of 20HZ to 20k HZ

But my point was that people often think that everything that exists is made of frequency as in oscillating pressure waves either below the range of hearing or above the range of hearing and that nothing that we call solid is actually solid it's just made of frequency and I was pointing out how that is a mis understanding because science uses the term frequency far too often and it is usually misunderstood
An example being that "I go get the mail every day and so science would say I have a frequency of about 30 times a month " so the term frequency is being used to explain a repetition/ patern which is not the same thing as sound/ frequency.

And of course there are other points that we're stated as fact that are merely conceptual but I do not have the time to elaborate on them right now but I will later

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

Sound can be several different frequencies together at the same time and in constant fluctuation but it can also be just 1 frequency

Technically sound is anything that your hearing can pick up on which is normally in the frequency range of 20HZ to 20k HZ

But my point was that people often think that everything that exists is made of frequency as in oscillating pressure waves either below the range of hearing or above the range of hearing and that nothing that we call solid is actually solid it's just made of frequency and I was pointing out how that is a mis understanding because science uses the term frequency far too often and it is usually misunderstood
An example being that "I go get the mail every day and so science would say I have a frequency of about 30 times a month " so the term frequency is being used to explain a repetition/ patern which is not the same thing as sound/ frequency.

And of course there are other points that we're stated as fact that are merely conceptual but I do not have the time to elaborate on them right now but I will later

Interesting.
While I don't think everything is made of pressure waves, nor is anything made of frequency per say, but it may indeed be that a kind of oscillation with varying frequency underlies all of reality as we experience it. In the sense that we generally use the term solid, I would say that nothing is composed of things that are solid. Fundamental particles are said to be point particles that occupy no space, have no volume. At the most fundamental level that I know of we have the quantum field which appears to be a non-physical thing. More of a mathematical thing that exists in an imaginary space called Hilbert space where it has both positive and negative amplitudes at any given point, the square of which gives the probability that the wave would "collapse" into one of those point particles (or more complex thing) if an observation is made (or perhaps be experienced there within the observers consciousness). Granted a Schrodinger wave is not in the form of a typical standard sine wave but is generally much more complex, especially for a more complex object such as an atom, molecule, man, or perhaps a universe. Yet any wave can be represented as a combination of those simple sine waves through a Fourier transformation, and any object, no matter how complex, can be created in the same way. Any thing you choose to point to, can be represented as a combination of waves of different frequencies and amplitudes. So perhaps, nothing solid is "solid", but only an illusion/experience/observation of solid drawn from the complex combination of waves that are superimposed in it's quantum wave function. Consciousness, selectively resonating with some of the frequencies of that wave function out there in imaginary Hilbert space, filters out and amplifies the parts that it uses to create the reality that it experiences. So perhaps in that indirect sense, frequencies would be behind all of our experience of reality.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Interesting.
While I don't think everything is made of pressure waves, nor is anything made of frequency per say, but it may indeed be that a kind of oscillation with varying frequency underlies all of reality as we experience it. In the sense that we generally use the term solid, I would say that nothing is composed of things that are solid. Fundamental particles are said to be point particles that occupy no space, have no volume. At the most fundamental level that I know of we have the quantum field which appears to be a non-physical thing. More of a mathematical thing that exists in an imaginary space called Hilbert space where it has both positive and negative amplitudes at any given point, the square of which gives the probability that the wave would "collapse" into one of those point particles (or more complex thing) if an observation is made (or perhaps be experienced there within the observers consciousness). Granted a Schrodinger wave is not in the form of a typical standard sine wave but is generally much more complex, especially for a more complex object such as an atom, molecule, man, or perhaps a universe. Yet any wave can be represented as a combination of those simple sine waves through a Fourier transformation, and any object, no matter how complex, can be created in the same way. Any thing you choose to point to, can be represented as a combination of waves of different frequencies and amplitudes. So perhaps, nothing solid is "solid", but only an illusion/experience/observation of solid drawn from the complex combination of waves that are superimposed in it's quantum wave function. Consciousness, selectively resonating with some of the frequencies of that wave function out there in imaginary Hilbert space, filters out and amplifies the parts that it uses to create the reality that it experiences. So perhaps in that indirect sense, frequencies would be behind all of our experience of reality.

The thing is that science uses word play to mask the truth alot more then the average person realizes and that people need to question everything and not just exept what they are told because alot of what is called "fact" is not fact .

Example being science says that nothing is solid and that atoms are 99% empty when science has never looked at an atom before and we have never seen its construction let alone things like quirks .
Just because we can say touching A to B will = C and we do it and it does =C doesn't mean that the reson we made up for why A and B =C is infact the correct truth and 99% of science is opinion being sold to us as fact when it's not.