On Nothing in a void.

arfa brane said:
Suppose we go with the rule of thumb that a void has to have a boundary, even if there is literally nothing in this void.
An idea I've seen says we can represent a 'bubble' of nothing and think about a blind path through the side of a bubble.

Firstly though, we need to accept there is a notion of 'inside' and 'outside' a bubble, which we can represent as a closed curve, a loop, in two dimensions. Now the question is, how does a blind path 'know' about being inside or outside(?), which is to say, globally somewhere in the interior of a closed curve, or in the complement; assuming also a blind path can count boundary traversals.

So how does the path know it starts on the outside of any of the void bubbles in its reality? A godlike observer in the third dimension can determine this, given a finite number of voids, but a blind path sees all points as the same, except for intersections with a boundary. Otherwise it 'sees' nothing, and nothing is a visual aid here, like not being coloured in a map colouring.
Click to expand...
I would be dishonest to say that I really follow you here.
Alex
 
Start at the beginning. A void has a boundary.
Mathematically the boundary of a closed curve in a Euclidean space, or a closed 'bubble' in three dimensions has no thickness. But physically this can't be true, a physical bubble (even a jar made of thick glass) has to have some substance.

Now if there's a whole lot of void bubbles, and all you can do is pass through their boundaries, how do you know when you're in a void? If there's nothing it it (assume the blind path isn't affected in any way by being in a void or not, it's just a path). So it's something like a random walk through a graph, and it's based on the difference (between void and not-void), which is something that can be seen in the graph but is not seen by the random walk.
 
These ideas stem from my (probably incomplete) understanding of a kind of logic (what, there's more than one kind?) called boundary logic.

For example this note says:
This then is the simplest idea, the simplest beginning. We start with a representational space, initially empty and bounded. An empty blackboard, a blank sheet of paper, a smooth stretch of sand. Prior to marking, the representational space is void-space, or more simply, void. An empty page, for example, is void of marks.

Void-space has absolutely no structure and no properties. When the first mark is brought into existence by being scribed upon void-space, it takes on the property of existing. Prior to that, nothing is supported, nothing exists. Void-space precedes the mark as an ineffable, without distinction of any kind.
Click to expand...
--http://iconicmath.com/mypdfs/bl-from-beginning.021017.pdf

Note that, following the above argument, a soap bubble is a void because it contains no detergent molecules. Soap bubbles can be nested inside larger bubbles.
So given some collection of "marks" or bounded voids, a blind path through the boundaries can lead to a contradiction--if there is a void inside a void, a path into the inner void will look locally just like it has entered and left a single void and is 'outside' any void again.
Likewise, if there are two distinct bounded voids, a path through both will not be distinguishable from a path that goes through one void twice. And so on.

There are two kinds of void: bounded and unbounded. The latter is like an intentional contradiction in that reference to an absolute void is always contradictory.

That's my run-down so far, although there's a lot more to it. Boundary logic has apparently been around for over a century, but wasn't seriously used until Spencer Brown and his switching networks in the 1960s.
 
arfa brane said:
These ideas stem from my (probably incomplete) understanding of a kind of logic (what, there's more than one kind?) called boundary logic.

For example this note says: --http://iconicmath.com/mypdfs/bl-from-beginning.021017.pdf

Note that, following the above argument, a soap bubble is a void because it contains no detergent molecules. Soap bubbles can be nested inside larger bubbles.
So given some collection of "marks" or bounded voids, a blind path through the boundaries can lead to a contradiction--if there is a void inside a void, a path into the inner void will look locally just like it has entered and left a single void and is 'outside' any void again.
Likewise, if there are two distinct bounded voids, a path through both will not be distinguishable from a path that goes through one void twice. And so on.

There are two kinds of void: bounded and unbounded. The latter is like an intentional contradiction in that reference to an absolute void is always contradictory.

That's my run-down so far, although there's a lot more to it. Boundary logic has apparently been around for over a century, but wasn't seriously used until Spencer Brown and his switching networks in the 1960s.
Click to expand...
Judging from what you present here, your "boundary logic" is not logic properly so-called. It really is essentially a theory, somewhat like you have Algebra or Group Theory. You start off with a few axioms of your choice, usually a clever and minimal expression of a particular conceptual framework, and you just run with it as far as you can.
Logic properly so-called is really fundamental and there's just one. It is therefore not optional. Even idiots have to rely on it. Theories, on the other hand, are multiple and optional in that they only apply to specific fields. You get to choose which one you think best apply to a particular field.
Logic properly so-called:
Logic
1. (Logic) the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context.
2. (Logic) any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference.
4. a particular method of argument or reasoning
Click to expand...
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/formal+language
Logic in a broader sense and very different from the first sense:
Logic
3. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study
Click to expand...
I guess the general idea is to start from a metaphor and see how far you can go with it. And, occasionally, this may bring you insights on the real world or even on yourself.
I'm not sure, though, how your boundary "logic" could relate at all to the common-sense notion of nothing.
And I also don't think we need any conceptual scheme to understand it. We all do. I suspect that even preverbal children do.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
Logic properly so-called is really fundamental and there's just one.
Click to expand...
I've studied enough logic to know that's just wrong.
I've never heard of a logic "properly so-called". Can you quote an example?
I'm not sure, though, how your boundary "logic" could relate at all to the common-sense notion of nothing.
Click to expand...
Boundary logic is Boolean, in that there are two abstract states: bounded and unbounded.
Moreover, a professor of Mathematics, Kauffmann, says this:
In that calculus a mark (denoted here by a bracket < >) represents a distinction and is seen to be a distinction between inside and outside.

In this elemental mathematics there is no distinction except the one that we draw between the mathematician and the operator in the formal system as sign/symbol/interpretant.

This gives full responsibility to the mathematician to draw the boundaries between the formal system as physical interaction and the formal system as symbolic entity and the formal system as Platonic conceptual form.
Click to expand...

It's not that easy to do, but you associate a "true" state with < >, "false" is then the absence of < >.
 
Last edited:
The thread is not about mathematics .

The thread is about the physical properties of nothing and a void .

Of which both are entirely seperate .

Nothing has no physical properties , it had and never will .

A void is an three dimensional area of space with no physical material in it .
 
river said:
The thread is not about mathematics .

The thread is about the physical properties of nothing and a void .

Of which both are entirely seperate .

Nothing has no physical properties , it had and never will .

A void is an three dimensional area of space with no physical material in it .
Click to expand...
Entering the domain of mathematics.....:)
 
The thread is not about mathematics .
Click to expand...
Logic isn't necessarily mathematics.

Logic can be just a series of statements:

The next sentence is true. This sentence is not empty, but the next one is. ( )

. . . I can represent an empty sentence as ( ), a space character with brackets around it. What does the boundary represent physically, logically (symbolically), or Platonically? In fact, the concept of "empty" is entirely encapsulated between two boundaries.

But wait, the sentence "( )" isn't really empty, but I can "empty" it by doing this: (( )) =

Which implies: ((( ))) = ( ).
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
Logic isn't necessarily mathematics.

Logic can be just a series of statements:

The next sentence is true. This sentence is not empty, but the next one is. ( )

. . . I can represent an empty sentence as ( ), a space character with brackets around it. What does the boundary represent physically, logically (symbolically), or Platonically? In fact, the concept of "empty" is entirely encapsulated between two boundaries.

But wait, the sentence "( )" isn't really empty, but I can "empty" it by doing this: (( )) =

Which implies: ((( ))) = ( ).
Click to expand...
I see that as a mathematical equation, obscure and abstract to be sure, but mathematical in essence nevertheless.
 
Write4U said:
I see that as a mathematical equation, obscure and abstract to be sure, but mathematical in essence nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Yet mathematics has nothing to do with a void in this thread . Mathematics is totally irrelavent .

The void is physical , not mathematical .
 
river said:
Yet mathematics has nothing to do with a void in this thread . Mathematics is totally irrelavent .

The void is physical , not mathematical .
Click to expand...
Physical values and functions are mathematical in essence. "The Universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties". (A Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark.)
 
river said:
The void is physical , not mathematical .
Click to expand...
And yet there is a mathematical way to describe physical things. Hence the void is also symbolic.

In the case of boundary logic, BL, a void has more than one equivalence (there are two kinds of void, bounded and unbounded). It's equivalent to false (false is the empty symbol), hence if ( ) is equivalent to true, then ( ) = (F) = T.

And (( )) = ((F)) = (T) = F.

Ladies and gentlemen, an algebra of symbols. T and F are Boolean values (this is just showing a connection to T/F binary logic), but in BL they could be whatever you like.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top