You can’t point to a relativity-bound cosmos, or its localizations, and therefore declare (1) because now, always, or (2) because here, everywhere.
That spacetime evinces spacetime in no way shows or proves that the terminal boundary, where-then-after spacetime isn’t, retains anything of spacetime, esp. using concepts like after and before. At the terminus, which we can call point zero or heat death, there is no there, and no after or before. What can be retained when the ‘substrate’ is the absence of any here, there, now or then?
Nothing communicates precisely nothing. That it can be stated doesn’t mean it is an entity or embodiment.
There’s a reason I used the 《is》 above, so that it was read as distinct from is. The 《is》 was my way of indicating a copula-only function for the third-person simple present/aorist of ‘to be’.
Individuals can discover what is there, like being able to see when the sunlight comes out, but there is nothing “new” to discover, that hasn’t been there since time without beginning.
So one cannot, in fact, even begin to reference “nothing” without “something” because “nothing” doesn’t even exist in this state. Thank you for the morning thought exercise.
You tried to anyway, but the reason you can’t do it successfully is because there is no such thing as “nothing” in this state of being. You’d have to look beyond your faith in believing you have the correct answer to see it. A four-dimensional understanding is no understanding at all.
Three people rent a hotel room for 30 dollars, and all pay an even 10 dollars each.
Later that day, the cashier realizes that the room was at the weekday price of 25 dollars a night.
As he was on his way to the room with the 5 dollars, he decided to keep 2 dollars for himself so he could divide the refund evenly to the tenants. He gave them all 1 dollar.
Each person ended up paying 9 dollars for the room, and the cashier kept 2.
9 * 3 = 27.
27 +2 = 29.
Where is the missing dollar?
I prefer not to use proper math to prove an incorrect math equation.
