Sunday, January 19, 2014

Something from Nothing

Finally I've decided to blog-out my - still not mature - thoughts on how Something can be created from Nothing.

It's all about philosophy and Math, but I'll try to keep it simple, as the most fundamental things in life are simple.

Also keep in mind that what follows is not necessarily 'true', but more a 'thought model' helping to explain and to grasp the phenomenon of creating 'something out of nothing'.

Basic Thoughts
Try to imagine Nothing....

After a few minutes of philosophizing you'll notice, it's not possible to imagine Nothing. All we can come up with, is the 'idea' of Nothing, as Nothing is in fact 'No Thing'.

Now, this idea is exactly what 'was', 'is', and for ever 'will be': an 'idea'. Not a specific idea, but the concept of an idea. That's enough. The concept of an idea  doesn't exist in space or time, it's simply there. It's the metaphor of the concept of Nothing. It's potential.

'Idea' is the only word that not only is defined as a noun (passive, object), but 'at the same time' also as a kind of verb (operator, action), as an idea is 'that what can be imagined'. You also 'have' an idea.

Hence, an idea is passive and active at the same time. In self-reference terms the idea is the imagination of an idea.

This idea is in fact what we call 'spirit' in the wider sense of the word. It's an intention, it has the 'potential' (power) of 'creativity', of creating a (positive) illusion. In other words: it's the basis of 'creation'.

Let's define this general concept of  'idea' by the symbol 'i'.

The idea Mathematically expressed
As an idea is 'not real' but imaginary, the most logical mathematical translation of an idea (i) is the mathematical unit imaginary number, denoted as well as: 'i'

'i' is a so called 'complex number' in mathematics with the core property that if you multiply it with itself, the product is "−1".

So i 2 = −1.

As we all now there's no real number that multiplied with itself is a negative number (−1). So (i) will do perfectly as mathematical translation, as we'll see further on.

Next Step: How to create 'Something'
Now we've accepted the general concept of an idea (i), the question is : how to get from an idea (of Nothing) to Something if we have Nothing else but an idea (i).

The problem, or better expressed 'our luck' is that we have nothing else but an idea (i). Fortunately the concept of the idea (i) is as well singular as (not literally) plural and also object as well as operator, as the concept of ideas is still an idea and the imagination of an idea is also an idea.

So all it takes for an idea to create a 'next stage idea' is to apply the idea-concept on itself as an object and operator. It doesn't matter which one is the object or the operator, as object and operator on the idea-level are the same.

Creating Antimatter
O.K. Let's demonstrate what happens if we imply (the concept of) an idea on itself while applying some basic simple 'complex mathematics' as defined above:

i i = i(i) = i 2 =  −1

As we can see, the result is a 'real number'. Not only is it real, but it's also negative.
We can and will interpret a positive real number as what we perceive in our world as 'space'. We can touch it and see it, it's real...
Therefore a negative real number can be interpreted as 'antimatter'.

So applying an idea on itself generates 'antimatter'

Creating Time
Now let's go on by applying an idea on antimatter
Here it is:

i i i(i(i)) = i(i 2) = i(−1) = −i 

This result ' −i' can be interpreted as 'time', as is also the case in the definition with regard to space-time by Minkowski.

As 'time'  = i , we can also express time as a kind of idea (thought) in the past (as the sign of time is negative). In other words (free interpreted): time is the perception of thoughts in the past. 

Creating Space
Now, in the last step we finally we can apply the concept of idea on 'time', resulting in:

i i i(i i i) = i(-i) = −i 2 = 1

This result can - as defined - be interpreted as 'space' or 'matter'.

So 'space' or 'matter' is more or less the result of thinking or thoughts about time.
In other words, 'space' or 'matter' is our perception (= projected idea) of time in the 'present'.

Applying the idea on space again [ i(1) = i ] would result in the concept of 'idea' again, which starts the cycle of creation from beginning again.

As I've demonstrated by applying a very simple model, we can construct a thought model that subsequently creates antimatter, time and space from the basic imaginary general concept of an 'idea'.

So all we need for creation is to apply and multiply our ideas.

Realize and appreciate that you as a human being are also a 'divine' product of idea-creation. By applying  your ideas in the real world, you contribute to this 'world'. Hopefully a 'better' world in line with the idea ..... Just Do It! 

Hope you liked this 'philosophy blog'. Please comment your thoughts and ideas on this!


John Wozny said...


It is evident that your proposition is based on the premise that language relates to reality and can be used to explain it mathematically. In my view, this premise is false as also is your conclusion that time can be represented by –i and space by 1. Some of my arguments in this regard are:

1. Language and mathematics are self-contained and, therefore, circular or tautological. Both merely explain themselves and nothing else. Only language understands language and only mathematics understands mathematics. Both relate to convention not truth.

2. Your understanding of the word ‘idea’ seems to be confused and demonstrates the circular or tautological nature of language. You speak of ‘the concept of an idea’ i.e. the idea of an idea. The idea of an idea is an idea which is again an idea etc ad infinitum.

3. You also say that an idea is not real but imaginary. This begs the question: Is the product of imagination not a real product of imagination i.e. a dream a real dream? Also, are the alphabet and counting system ideas and, if so, are they real or imaginary?

4. You seem to equate the idea-of-nothingness with nothingness but an idea is something not nothing. Therefore nothingness can not be an idea.

5. As with the alphabet and the counting system, time is man-made. Hours, minutes, seconds, etc have no natural existence. Eliminate these units and the word ‘time’ becomes meaningless.

6. Space and nothingness are synonymous yet you define them as 1 and i which are distinctly different mathematical quantities. The number 0 would seem to be a more apt mathematical value for space.

Although the above may be true, it is only partly so because both language and mathematics have two aspects, the conceptual and the perceptual. The conceptual aspect relates to thought and the perceptual to communication. Thus the distinction between knowledge and information.

Joshua Maggid said...

I'm sorry John, I must have expressed myself very poorly....

0. There is no 'premise' that language relates to reality. In fact there's no premise at all.
1. Mathematics = language !! This blog is (as stated) not about truth, but about understanding that something can come from nothing.
2. idea = circular exactly, it is self referent (circular). that's just the main point!
3. Indeed, fundamentally there's no difference between reality and imaginary.
4. As Nothingness does not exist in a real world, all that is left is the idea of nothingness.
5. Time is not specified in hours or seconds in my approach. Also there's no counting in my approach.
6. I don't 'define' Nothingness. I define the idea of nothingness.

John Wozny said...

(In response to reply by Joshua Maggid)

0. All propositions of the form A = B rely on the premise that language or mathematics relate to reality.

a. As a form of expression, mathematics is a language.
b. Surely understanding relates to truth. What is the point of understanding that which is not true?
a. Are you saying that you main point is that an idea is an idea?
b. If nothingness is an idea and so also are anti-matter, time and space then each are equally represented by i. What justifies sequentially raising the power of the latter three?

3. If there is no fundamental difference between reality and imaginary then there is no difference between something (real) and nothing (imaginary). If this is so, then what is your point?

4. If nothingness does not exist in the real world then the idea of nothingness is false. Consequently, your explanation is based on a false premise.

5. Your approach is mathematical and the basis of mathematics is counting.

6. You define nothingness as an idea which you then define as i. To me, this is a definition of nothingness. In any event, your argument proceeds from nothingness and ends with space. Space is not something therefore you fail in your objective.

To my mind, your explanation has some merit if pursued in an alternative direction.

If nothingness and something-ness are both fictional (I prefer this word to ‘imaginary’) then a self-contradiction arises because one or the other is necessarily true (they can not both be false). It follows from this that reality (truth) is self-contradictory i.e. that nothingness = something-ness. This somewhat illogical proposition explains reality as analogous to surface which is neither inside nor outside yet both. In other words, reality is neither nothingness nor something-ness (both fictional) but the difference between them (which is real).

Joshua Maggid said...

In short John:

1. I'm not stating anything about 'truth'; Truth is a subjective conclusion depending on axioms...

2. As stated: The idea is a concept, it's abstract, it's potential

3. I'm NOT stating that "nothingness is an idea" and I'm NOT powering Ideas. I'm just 'apply' idea (as a verb or operator) on the idea (as a noun).

The mathematical equivalent of the idea (i) and the application of applying (i) to (i) is indeed done by multiplication. The 'logical' reason behind this is that multiplication is an isomorphism (analogy) of the logical expression 'AND'. (

4. As mentioned: "true or false don't apply here". Something that does not 'exist' in a real world isn't true or fals, it's just 'there'; it has no direct real properties, in fact 'as such' it has no intrinsic properties at all.

5. Mathematics is no more than a symbolic language, depending on axioms. Counting is a 'branch' of mathematics:

6. as stated 'nothingness'is not 'equal' to idea.
You may view 'space as 'matter'(=1) and the opposite of antimatter (= -(-1) ). I've added this view to my blog. This gives more imagination to the view that 'matter' is a (energy)-form of space. (It's what really 'matters' to us ;-) )

7. I fully agree with you last statement. here you 'grasp' what I try to state in this blog.

Thank you John.

Kind regards, Joshua

Carmen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Why people still make use of to read news papers when in this technological globe everything is
available on net?

My weblog; lasertest