There, as recounted in the first words of Genesis, Light illuminates the scene, while earth was yet a formless Void.
For the sake of this discussion, I define Void more narrowly than did the translators of the NRSV Bible. VOID—all caps—so lacks content that even creative potential lies outside its domain. No singularity lurks there. No Big Bang waits in the wings. If there is anything, it is No-thing.
A conception of VOID absent the raw clay of Genesis—firmament, heavens, light, Creator—is useful as a reference point; the expressions Empty Space and Vacuum fall far short, as we shall see.
So, VOID—without form, without temporal quality, without potential.
Has such a No-thing as VOID ever existed? Who knows? This author feels in his bones that VOID as defined here has never existed. This author feels that what we “know” and “feel” did not spring from VOID; that is, our Some-thing did not spring from the VOID No-thing. (My VOID is a supposition defined for its utility, a reference point at one end of the two-point Existence scale . . . the null or zero point.)
Uncle John
If you don't believe your VOID ever really existed—notice I use all caps—I'm a bit mystified why you even bother to define the word as you do. You hint that "void" in the conventional sense is really some-thing.
In the conventional sense of things, are we having this conversation in some place and some time, or is this conversation a figment of my own insubstantial imagination.
Christopher
Christopher
In answer, nephew, I say we most certainly are having a conversation, a substantial one at that. Way many years ago, four hundred and then some, a French philosopher named René Descartes laid it out ever so succinctly in his Discourse on the Method & Principles of Philosophy—“Cogito, ergo sum” . . . I think, therefore I am. Pretty nice for a first principal, don’t you think? So, IS is, and for a second principal I’d like to throw in that we and all objects around us are ever-changing. For this overlooked notion I like the word FLUX, in all caps to differentiate my rather restricted meaning from more conventional definitions.
Anticipating your next communication, I choose to believe our conversation is two-sided, that the two of us are batting around some ideas in a universe larger than our individual imaginations. But what do I know? All thought, all theory springs from the Great Mysterium. Theories, so bright and shiny in the sunshine of development, have a disappointing way of merging back into the inky blackness of a confusing and perplexing universe.
Uncle John
P.S. Check out René Descartes (1596-1650)—
Uncle
Ever changing? What about still waters?
Christopher
You ask about "still waters." As the saying goes, still water run deep. Direct your gaze into those supposed still waters and notice your changing reflection and those almost imperceptible ripples that define calm. A thermometer and a magnifying glass will reveal still more FLUX.
When examined closely, no thing is ever still nor do events repeat themselves exactly as before. It is only a matter of looking more closely to the point where looking itself induces change.
With these preliminaries out of the way, would you like to hear about an early attempt at the measurement of the speed of light? This is, after all, a blog about the speed of light.
Uncle John
