Definicija za "nishto"
Definicija za "nishto"
sasha Koja e definicijata na "nishto"? Dali nekogash sve bilo "nishto"? Dali mozeme da kazeme deka pred Big bang bila faza na "nishto"? Dali sekogas doagame do paradoxot: 1. Ili od nishto nastalano neshto- a togas kako moze od nishto da nastane neshto? A toa pak znaci deka mora da postoi nekoj haoticen proces koj doveduva do premin od nishto neshto. Znaci pak postoi neshto. I pak sme na pocetok. 2.Ili neshto postoelo odsekogash.Ova mi se cini poparadoxalno od prvoto.
sirius Nema problem, imame li samo kvalitetni diskutanti :)??? ....come on Boris, startuvaj...kaj gledash vrska na egzinstencijalizmot so prashanjeto vo prviot post na ovoj topic koe glasi: "Dali mozeme da kazeme deka pred Big bang bila faza na "nishto"?"...
BorisVM Sirius, Jas kako shto gledam se naodjaat. E sega koj i kolku razbira toa e vekje drugo. Hajdeger go imash chitano? Tuka e vrskata.
sirius Neshtoto go nema ako zborot ne prisustvuva. Zborot ja daruva prisutnosta: onamu kade shto prestanuva govorot, zapochnuva nishtoto...otprilika vaka odeshe Hajdeger... samo teshko vakvi temi se objasnuvaat so chista filozovija...???
sirius na ovaa tema napishav eden podolg post, na podforumot religija, topic evolucija ili kreacionizam, vidi na sl. link http://forums.vmacedonia.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14375&whichpage=1 Imashe dva tri komentari po religiska osnova i tolku....mislam deka nema potreba od inflacija na novi topics koi se skoro identichni so veke otvorenite, odnosno, diskusiite neminovno ke se usmerat kon neshto shto e veke postirano...no toa e samo moe mislenje???
BorisVM Mislam deka temata beshe postavena da se diskutira od filozofska gledna tochka, a ne od religiozna. Pred se razlikata na definicijata pomedju Istochnite i Zapadni kulturi i filozofski tradicii, kako na primer egsinstencijalizmot. Shto mislish, isto e nishto i nula vo matematikata da recheme?
f9 Vo pochetniot moment na stvoranjeto na Univerzumot ... Zemete podskinata vrekja oriz i frlete ja na hokejsko lizgalishte.Toa e Big bengot koga vrekjata ke udri i ke se rasprsne na site strani orizot,ta odi soberi go ako mozhesh. Gustinata na materijata na apsolutno nivo,minimalnost na prostorot i negova hiper koncentracija.Toa najmalku mi izgleda na nishto.Shto bilo pred Big Bengot,nishto?,ne bash.Nie ne mozheme da si zamislime kako bi postoela Materijata nadvor od prostorot,no toa ne e nishto.Toa e mozhebi nashe nepoznavanje.Tuka se razvija napolnuvachki teoriite so mnogute dimenzii-superstring koj go nadopolnuvaat ona shto nikogash mozhebi ne ke mozhe chovekot da go dokazhe ili otpovrgne.Krajniot dostrel na ekspanzijata vo celiot univerzum,koga vie bi bile se na ovoj svet i nasekade so brzini na svetlinata i masa kolku cel univerzum,...za slednata dimenzija vie bi prestavuvale prosechna slika nepodvizhna i bez merliva komponenta vo svetot na pobrojnata dimenzija.Nishtoto ne postoi vo fizichkiot svet,toj e del na psihichkiot na nepoznatoto,nedefiniranoto i neoformenoto.Shto bilo pred ragjanjeto i shto ke bide posle smrtta se nepoznatici za zhiviot ateist.Za religioznite nadeshta go ispolnuva nishtoto.
BorisVM
quote:
Originally posted by Duh
Mene mi e nesfatlivo toa big beng. Poprvo bi prifatil deka energijata (zivotot, pa moze i Gospod) postoela otsekogas. Kako toa? Ne znam, no toa bi znacelo deka ne postoi "nisto". I nie sme del od Boga, nasata dusa, koja e vecna, postojana i besmrtna.
Hmm, Duh spored napisov ne si bash zapoznaen so kvantnata fizika i mehanika. Ili da go citiram Ludvig Rohe "Gospod e vo detaljite" :)
sirius
quote:
Originally posted by BorisVM
Sirius, Povekje informacii za [url="http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/7b.htm"]Nishto i Hajdeger[/url]. Podobro e objasneto.
off topic Abe Boris, so dikusijava me vraksh poveke od 25 god vo minatoto [:)], vo najdobriot period na mojot zivot...beveme golema tajfa - studentarija, voglavno izmeshani, ekonomija, filozovija, sociologija, pravo, teh.nauki... pa obichno posle odmorite ( Jadran ili Grchka ) se odeche vo Ohrid - Gradishte, "toa beshe zakon", [:)], i tamu, pokraj nezaboravnite zabavi i zaebancii, bea vistinskite "summer talks" about us, system, philosophy and so on....[:)]....Hajdeger, Nitsche, Schopenhauer, Bergson, Witgestein, Wiliam Jones, Sartr...Hesse beshe zadolzitelna lektira, Markes, Borhes, ... koj kolku ima poim shto e dobar film, muzika, .... stvarno odamna nikoj so kogo kontaktiram nema nishto provocirano od ovaie temi...mozebi e toa od tmurnava sostojba ovde vo Mkd,....no, imam dojam deka pomladava generacija ( na koja i ti pripagash, shto prijatno me iznenaduvash ) diskutira za "polesni temi" i na popovrshen nachin...ne e losho da se otvori nekoj vakov topic, da se "sudrime" "mladi i hrabri" [:p] vs "stari i iskusnii" [8D], vo smisol za viziite, ochekuvanjata, realizacijata na samite sebe, malku poveke za nas, a ne samo za toa koj kolku stana ukral, za Buchko, za Ljubco i ostala "estrada"...bi trebalo da ima kvalitetna diskusija...???????????
BorisVM Sirius, Povekje informacii za [url="http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/7b.htm"]Nishto i Hajdeger[/url]. Podobro e objasneto.
Duh Mene mi e nesfatlivo toa big beng. Poprvo bi prifatil deka energijata (zivotot, pa moze i Gospod) postoela otsekogas. Kako toa? Ne znam, no toa bi znacelo deka ne postoi "nisto". I nie sme del od Boga, nasata dusa, koja e vecna, postojana i besmrtna.
Enigma
quote:
Originally posted by sasha
Koja e definicijata na "nishto"? Dali nekogash sve bilo "nishto"? Dali mozeme da kazeme deka pred Big bang bila faza na "nishto"? Dali sekogas doagame do paradoxot: 1. Ili od nishto nastalano neshto- a togas kako moze od nishto da nastane neshto? A toa pak znaci deka mora da postoi nekoj haoticen proces koj doveduva do premin od nishto neshto. Znaci pak postoi neshto. I pak sme na pocetok. 2.Ili neshto postoelo odsekogash.Ova mi se cini poparadoxalno od prvoto.
Nishto e nematerijalno neshto. Ne se raboti za haotichnost, tuku za matematichki redosled. Prviot proj (pred edinicata) e 0 (nula -nishto) po koj sledi edinicata, pa natamu sledat proevi do beskraj. Matematichkite operacii po redosled se: sobiranje, odzemanje, mnozhenje i delenje. Pred da postoi svetot, postoel samo eden beztelesen nematerijalen Bog, Koj go stvoril svetot OD NISHTO, t.e. PREKU SLOVO (ZBOR): "da bide..., i bi". Bog sobiral dedeka ne sozdal se shto sakal, patem odzemal (im go odzel rajot na Adam i Eva). Potoa gi pomnozhil lugjeto vo pleminjata i gi podelil na narodi i drzhavi. Bog e semokjen, pa i od nishto mozhe da stvori mnogu povekje od "neshto". Koga broime, sobirame i mnozhime, nulata na krajot pretstavuva desetki, stotici, iljadnici, milini, bilioni i taka mozheme do beskraj (vechno) da broime i mnozhime, i nema da stigneme do posledniot broj, bidejki takov ednostavno ne postoi. Ete, toa "nishto" preku koe Bog go stvoril svetot vodi kon vechnosta.
sirius What is Nothing It's not anything, and it's not something, yet it isn't the negation of something, either. Traditional logic is no help, since it merely regards all negation as derivative from something positive. So, Heidegger proposed, we must abandon logic in order to explore the character of Nothing as the background out of which everything emerges…..citat Zen budizmot vo izvesna smisla kako da se nadopolnuva so Heideger, i ima vakvo stojalishte: Телото е дрво на просветлување Умот е како чисто огледало. Во секое време мора да се чисти За да не падне на него ни прашинка. Суштински не постои дрво на просветлување, Нити постои потпора со чисто огледало. Суштински ништо не постои; На што ќе падне прашината? Toa shto ovde e recheno e deka zborovite ne izrazuvaat nishto drugo osven gledishta. No site gledishta se pogreshni zashto se proizvod na umot koj operira vo subject-objekt dihotomii. Spoznajata se dostignuva koga chovek ke ja vidi sopstvenata vistinska priroda - svojata chista svest koja e zad dualizmot….. Idejata za nishtoto ne e koncept do koj se stasuva so analit.rasuduvanje, tuku e takov koj treba da bide razbran vo estetski termini. Estetskata forma e prerekvizit na konceptualnata percepcija…...
sasha This article is on the abstract meaning of nothing. Nothing is a state of being; in a sense, it is a state of not being, ceasing to exist. Nothing is the lack or absence of anything (including empty space). Colloquially, however, the term is often used to describe a particularly unimpressive person, event, or object. The term "nothing" is rarely used mathematically, though it could be said that a set contains "nothing" if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. In other words, the word "nothing" is a colloqial term for an "empty set". "Nothing" and "zero" are closely related but not identical concepts, though, in common parlance, the word "nothing" can also mean "zero" which is a mathematic object that can, for example, symbolize a variable which is "lacking in value". This is why zero can be included in a set. Like "zero," the word "nothing" can symbolize the concept of "a lack of value". But as "nothing" is a linguistic term, it lacks any rigorous definition. Thus it can only be distinguished from context whether or not the word "nothing" represents what mathematicians would call an "empty set" (e.g. "There is nothing here"), or whether it represents what mathematicians would call a "zero" or a lack of value (e.g. "It is worth nothing"). This lack of rigorous definition can allow one to create statements which seem to be logical fallacies—If you have nothing except for nothing, do you have something or nothing? From a philosophical point of view, the concept of "nothing" can have many interpretations. In fact, one can even say that nothing does not exist. One cannot sense, see, feel, or think nothing. There is no contact with nothing. Nothing is where everything isn't. Visualizing "nothing" would make "something". It could be seen as a physical void or as just a word which only has meaning when used to describe a relationship between different "somethings". A single "correct" definition of nothing could be considered impossible, since "right" and "wrong" do not fit within the confines of nothing. The intriguing aspect of nothing is that, while not covering any factual matter, it does have a function attached to it; much depends on the structure in which the nothing is found. The easiest example to explain the importance of the overall structure is found with zero — though again, zero and nothing are not totally identical. Zero is found, for instance, in two different systems: the binary system and the decimal system. In the binary system zero is one of only two members, and its function is considered clearly very important, for instance, in computers. In the decimal system, however, zero is one of many, and since its function here seems to deliver the message of not-important, people do not even bother counting from zero, but start counting 1, 2, 3 etc. Only in a count down does zero become important again; in the decimal system, zero can easily be ignored. Mathematical evidence suggests that zero always exists. Similar to zero, the label nothing gets perceived as either important or not-important depending on the actual system in which it is considered. Compare these two sentences in which nothing plays the central role: While traveling to the city nothing happened and so I arrived safely; while getting ready to pay I discovered that there was nothing in my wallet, and so I had to go wash the dishes. The concept of "nothing" has been studied throughout history by philosophers and theologians; many have found that careful consideration of the notion can easily lead to the logical fallacy of reification. The understanding of "nothing" varies widely between cultures, especially between Western and Eastern cultures and philosophical traditions. For instance, nothing is considered a state of mind in Buddhism (See nirvana, Mu, Enlightenment). Existentialism and Heidegger have brought these two understandings closer together.
Duh Ne sum, BorisVM, a i malku gi pomesav poimite, no sustinata e ista barem za mene. Mozebi univerzumot e posledica na big beng no ne i upravuvackata energija koja e prv pocetok. Taa bi morala da nastane od nesto. Ako e vekje posledica na nisto, togas toa nisto ne e nisto tuku e nesto. Se razbira, nematerijalno! Znaci energija, mozebi i duh, nevidliva i suptilna, no sepak energija a ne nisto. E sega, ako gi posmatrame rabotite kako onaa slika na jin i jang koja kazuva deka sekoe dobro ima potencijalno zlo vo sebe, a isto i zloto... bi mozele da dojdeme do zaklucok deka postoi nisto koe ima vo sebe potencijal da bide nesto. Se razbravme! :)))