Outer Darkness: Nothing vs. Oblivion

[Guest]

I was tutoring my daughter in math and she asked an interesting question.  The set of "all real numbers"(-ꝏ, ꝏ) is essentially the opposite of the "Null set"(Ø).  Why isn't the null set the same as saying zero?  Why isn't zero (0) the opposite of infinity?

I had to explain why zero was not the same as the opposite of infinity in math.  But the 0 vs Ø intrigued me.  They are both a form of nothing.  But they're not the same thing.

I scratched my head at that one.  And it got me to thinking about the vast emptiness of space vs oblivion.  Is there really a difference between "nothing" and "lack of existence"?  I wonder then if the opposite of light is dark does not mean what we might think it means.  Is Outer Darkness really a state of existence?  Or non-existence?  Is oblivion even possible?  If oblivion is not possible, is "nothingness" possible?

I know that anything that didn't have a beginning will have no end.  So, is the existence of spirit (including all the souls going to O.D.) eternal?  Will it always be?  Could it be that they become nothing but still exist?

[zil]

I'll have to ponder longer to see if I have thoughts related to outer darkness, but for what it's worth, in database-land, NULL is similar to saying "unknown" or "unknowable".  NULL is not equal to, unequal to, greater than, or less than any other value - it cannot be compared, not even to another NULL.  From this, one could accurately say that there is no value at all, which is why it cannot be compared.  (There may be nothing new / different in that, but thought I'd mention it in case it sends your mind wandering down interesting paths.)

[Guest]

9 hours ago, zil said:

I'll have to ponder longer to see if I have thoughts related to outer darkness, but for what it's worth, in database-land, NULL is similar to saying "unknown" or "unknowable".  NULL is not equal to, unequal to, greater than, or less than any other value - it cannot be compared, not even to another NULL.  From this, one could accurately say that there is no value at all, which is why it cannot be compared.  (There may be nothing new / different in that, but thought I'd mention it in case it sends your mind wandering down interesting paths.)

Yes, very similar.  Perhaps "unknown" is a good way to say it.  Darkness = without light and knowledge.  Outer darkness is a place of no knowledge.

[person0]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder then if the opposite of light is dark does not mean what we might think it means.

The opposite of light is actually the absence of light.  We use the word 'dark' to represent our perception of the absence of light.  Our perception results in a common understanding and recognition of darkness, but ambiguous use of the term.  Light is measurable, darkness is not.  Darkness is not actually something that exists.  The same applies to heat and cold.  There is no such thing as cold.  Cold is merely the word we use to describe reduced levels of heat.  Cold, as a descriptive term, is also used ambiguously.

Outer Darkness, if there is a physical location that corresponds, would be a place with no light.  However, it would not involve the end to existence of someone or something that goes there, it would simply involve the absence of light, which as you suggested, would also involve an absence of knowledge that could be attained.

Nothingness is not possible in whole, only in part.  You an have, no light, no knowledge, no matter.  However, complete nothing cannot be achieved, because the physical space required to achieve all of the other nothings would be overwritten as soon as you modified the physical space down to nothing.  Imagine a perfect vacuum contained in a glass bottle; there is nothing inside it, but the space inside it still exists.  You can't eliminate the space inside it, without overwriting the physical space with the space outside the bottle, or the bottle itself.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had to explain why zero was not the same as the opposite of infinity in math.  But the 0 vs Ø intrigued me.  They are both a form of nothing.  But they're not the same thing.

They're not the same thing because they have meaning that is important to differentiate. As a programmer that concept comes out very quick. And int being set to 0 and and int being set to null literally mean something different. (Ah...I see @zil already addressed that).

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I scratched my head at that one.  And it got me to thinking about the vast emptiness of space vs oblivion.  Is there really a difference between "nothing" and "lack of existence"?  I wonder then if the opposite of light is dark does not mean what we might think it means.  Is Outer Darkness really a state of existence?  Or non-existence?  Is oblivion even possible?  If oblivion is not possible, is "nothingness" possible?

You are literally asking question that have been specifically, even scriptural, declared as unknowable.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, person0 said:

Nothingness is not possible in whole, only in part.  You an have, no light, no knowledge, no matter.  However, complete nothing cannot be achieved, because the physical space required to achieve all of the other nothings would be overwritten as soon as you modified the physical space down to nothing.  Imagine a perfect vacuum contained in a glass bottle; there is nothing inside it, but the space inside it still exists.  You can't eliminate the space inside it, without overwriting the physical space with the space outside the bottle, or the bottle itself.

Exactly.  In order for nothing to exist, everything would have to cease to exist.  So long as anything exists, nothing does not.  So much linguistic fun to be had with nothing, no one, no where, and never.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Imagine a perfect vacuum contained in a glass bottle; there is nothing inside it, but the space inside it still exists.  You can't eliminate the space inside it, without overwriting the physical space with the space outside the bottle, or the bottle itself.

Exactly.  The perfect vacuum (empty space) is zero.  But that is not the same as "nothing" (null set).  What if outer darkness is the actual achievement of the null set?

[Guest]

11 hours ago, zil said:

NULL is similar to saying "unknown" or "unknowable". 

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You are literally asking question that have been specifically, even scriptural, declared as unknowable.

That confirms it.  It is unknowable.  So, what if it is unknowable simply because it is a place/condition/etc. of no knowledge?

God's realm is infinite.  Therefore, His light is everywhere that actually exists.  But outer darkness is a place that has NO glory from God.  Therefore it is in a place of non-existence.  That is one huge paradox.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That confirms it.  It is unknowable.  So, what if it is unknowable simply because it is a place/condition/etc. of no knowledge?

God's realm is infinite.  Therefore, His light is everywhere that actually exists.  But outer darkness is a place that has NO glory from God.  Therefore it is in a place of non-existence.  That is one huge paradox.

Let's pretend you're well aware that "to man" was implicit in my comment, and accordingly I won't quote D&C 76:45-47 in response. 

[askandanswer]

I've sometimes thought to myself that outer darkness is a black hole. The spirits that get sent their get reduced to their component parts, ie, the pre-existing intelligence and a God-added spirit, and after some indeterminate amount of time, become raw materials for either the same or some other god to construct a new soul with absolutely no connection at all, no continuity between the old and the new soul. 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was tutoring my daughter in math and she asked an interesting question.  The set of "all real numbers"(-ꝏ, ꝏ) is essentially the opposite of the "Null set"(Ø).  Why isn't the null set the same as saying zero?  Why isn't zero (0) the opposite of infinity?

I had to explain why zero was not the same as the opposite of infinity in math.  But the 0 vs Ø intrigued me.  They are both a form of nothing.  But they're not the same thing.

I scratched my head at that one.  And it got me to thinking about the vast emptiness of space vs oblivion.  Is there really a difference between "nothing" and "lack of existence"?  I wonder then if the opposite of light is dark does not mean what we might think it means.  Is Outer Darkness really a state of existence?  Or non-existence?  Is oblivion even possible?  If oblivion is not possible, is "nothingness" possible?

I know that anything that didn't have a beginning will have no end.  So, is the existence of spirit (including all the souls going to O.D.) eternal?  Will it always be?  Could it be that they become nothing but still exist?

I think there can be a difference. For example, the number zero fulfills several roles, including a placeholder in place value systems to show order of magnitude (10, 100, 1000, etc.).

“Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” (Moses 1:10). The kingdoms of glory, the relative intelligence, etc. are orders of magnitude (Abraham 3:18; Abraham 3:26; D&C 77:3A; D&C 88:37).

But of course something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. The man I was yesterday is not the man I am today, yet I am still a man and through Christ it can someday be said of me, "... he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever," but only in relation to those intelligences I am given.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I've sometimes thought to myself that outer darkness is a black hole. The spirits that get sent their get reduced to their component parts, ie, the pre-existing intelligence and a God-added spirit, and after some indeterminate amount of time, become raw materials for either the same or some other god to construct a new soul with absolutely no connection at all, no continuity between the old and the new soul. 

One may as well surmise that outer darkness is a pizza parlor where they only serve Hawaiian pizza. Has about as much a chance of being accurate.

[askandanswer]

Here are some idle speculations I have jotted down over the years on the possibility that black holes have some sort of divine role in the universe. There is nothing scriptural here, just a few ideas, maybe even possibilities. I’m not saying they are right or wrong, I’ve just found it to be an interesting thing to think about from time to time.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.
What forces or objects in the universe repel each other in the same way that light and truth forsake evil? Opposite ends of magnetic poles? Matter and anti-matter? Are these forces properties of, or in some way derived from that same opposition between light and evil? What creates or generates light, and what absorbs light and sucks it up? Stars create light, black holes absorb it. Are stars in some way gods, or the abode of gods, and black holes in some ways abodes of evil? Stars create matter through nuclear reactions and then disseminate that matter throughout space and black holes tear matter apart through gravitational forces and prevent matter from dissemination throughout space. God creates by joining things together, eg, spirit to intelligence to create a soul, sperm and egg to create a body, husband and wife to create an eternal couple, black holes tear things apart.

Isaiah 54:16)
16  Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

When God wants something to be destroyed, one way of doing so would be to separate that thing into its component parts.

The works of God are endless and eternal and possibly increasing. The universe is expanding. Gravitational forces could prevent the universe from expanding and cause it to contract back in upon itself, ultimately reversing the big bang. That which limits is evil and of the devil, that which increases is good and of God. That which promotes freedom, ie, free movement and expansion of matter or spirit, is of God, that which promotes control, ie, preventing the movement of matter and spirit, is of the devil. If the intentions of God are expansion and progression, and the effect of black holes is to contract, these two forces would seem to be completely opposed to each other.

It seem likely that God’s  dwelling place is a Sun. Abraham chapter 3 seems to suggest this as do the many references to God dwelling in the midst of everlasting burnings. If this is true then it is interesting to speculate on the possibility of outer darkness being a black hole. It seems reasonable to suppose that hell, or outer darkness would be the opposite of heaven.  A sun gives out all its light, a black hole gives out none. A sun allows life by giving of its light, a black hole causes death by sucking up whatever gets too close, including light.

Just this morning, while thinking how to respond, I came across this. Totally unsupported, and somewhat dated, but indicating that at least someone else has considered the possibility that black holes might be outer darkness. 

 If the black hole were rotating and the astronaut navigates his ship at just the right angle, instead of being drawn to oblivion at the hole's center, he might be flung to another region of time and space. But we would never know if he were successful: it would be impossible for him to return. Could this be the "outer darkness" mentioned in some scriptures such as D&C 101:91?
(From The Creation, by Frank B Salisbury, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_B._Salisbury available on  gospelink.com 
 

Edited April 30, 2018 by askandanswer

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I've sometimes thought to myself that outer darkness is a black hole. The spirits that get sent their get reduced to their component parts, ie, the pre-existing intelligence and a God-added spirit, and after some indeterminate amount of time, become raw materials for either the same or some other god to construct a new soul with absolutely no connection at all, no continuity between the old and the new soul. 

I think much as you do; except that it seems to me that whatever that “component part” is, probably has some measure of intelligence/individuality.  As such, I think it unlikely that the “raw intelligence” would ever have an opportunity to become part of a new creation.  Imagine the protests from the Terrestrial and Telestial if a son of perdition, on his second go-around, received exaltation?  Moreover, it would serve as a tacit admission that the intelligence’s first experience as a created being, and the outcome thereof, was somehow unjust or otherwise defective.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

In computer science, the null is the undefined, the unknown value.  0 is a known quantity.  Null means no quantity has been defined, or cannot be determined. 

 

[person0]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Exactly.  The perfect vacuum (empty space) is zero.  But that is not the same as "nothing" (null set).  What if outer darkness is the actual achievement of the null set?

I really don't think that is the case.  That would essentially mean that those who go to outer darkness would actually cease to exist.  In that case, although we are all just speculating, I don't think I could get on board with that.  I don't think it could possibly be done.  Transformation perhaps, but not complete elimination.

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That confirms it.  It is unknowable.  So, what if it is unknowable simply because it is a place/condition/etc. of no knowledge?

God's realm is infinite.  Therefore, His light is everywhere that actually exists.  But outer darkness is a place that has NO glory from God.  Therefore it is in a place of non-existence.  That is one huge paradox.

I think a separate universe could potentially solve your paradox.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

I think a separate universe could potentially solve your paradox.

Not really.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let's pretend you're well aware that "to man" was implicit in my comment, and accordingly I won't quote D&C 76:45-47 in response. 

Let's pretend that you're well aware that my previous comment was at least in part, tongue in cheek.

But now that you've invoked v 45-47, that reminds me of a certain door in the book Redemption of Althalus.

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

One may as well surmise that outer darkness is a pizza parlor where they only serve Hawaiian pizza. Has about as much a chance of being accurate.

I honestly don't know which is worse.  I think I'd pick oblivion.

[person0]

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Imagine the protests from the Terrestrial and Telestial if a son of perdition, on his second go-around, received exaltation?

Unless there is progression between kingdoms.  If it were so, then it is doubtful they would be complaining about it so long as God waited until after all telestial beings made it to the celestial kingdom before giving the sons of perdition another shot at making it there.  (I personally do not believe there is progression between kingdoms, but in a universe where God allows sons of perdition to start over and try again, seems like that could also be the case)

[askandanswer]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think much as you do; except that it seems to me that whatever that “component part” is, probably has some measure of intelligence/individuality.  As such, I think it unlikely that the “raw intelligence” would ever have an opportunity to become part of a new creation.  

Perhaps if any sense of identity/consciousness/continuity was also stripped away from the raw intelligence, would that address this concern? Sort of like when you throw an old coin into the fire and it melts down and everything which made it a coin, eg, the image, the date, the words, all disappears. The actual metal remains, ready to be minted into a new coin, with no association with the previous coin.

Edited April 30, 2018 by askandanswer

[zil]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Redemption of Althalus.

David Eddings is a great story-teller, no?  A wonderful mix of old-fashioned story telling and the new rule of "show, don't tell".

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I've sometimes thought to myself that outer darkness is a black hole. The spirits that get sent their get reduced to their component parts, ie, the pre-existing intelligence and a God-added spirit, and after some indeterminate amount of time, become raw materials for either the same or some other god to construct a new soul with absolutely no connection at all, no continuity between the old and the new soul. 

 

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think much as you do;

So are we not taking God at His word that those souls who become sons of perdition who lived in mortality, and thereby are resurrected, will die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption?

Or are we applying this black-hole-dom and potential regeneration of intelligences to only Satan and his followers?

[zil]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think much as you do; except that it seems to me that whatever that “component part” is, probably has some measure of intelligence/individuality.  As such, I think it unlikely that the “raw intelligence” would ever have an opportunity to become part of a new creation.  Imagine the protests from the Terrestrial and Telestial if a son of perdition, on his second go-around, received exaltation?  Moreover, it would serve as a tacit admission that the intelligence’s first experience as a created being, and the outcome thereof, was somehow unjust or otherwise defective.

I sometimes wonder about scriptural statements that it would have been better if so-n-so hadn't been born - makes me wonder if those who never received a mortal body might actually have a better long-term outcome than those who receive resurrection without glory.  Of course, I think  "cessation of sentience" would be "better" than "eternity in misery" (assuming one believes oneself to be miserable).

10 hours ago, person0 said:

That would essentially mean that those who go to outer darkness would actually cease to exist.  In that case, although we are all just speculating, I don't think I could get on board with that.  I don't think it could possibly be done.  Transformation perhaps, but not complete elimination.

If "intelligence" is "light and truth" and outer darkness is the utter absence of light and truth, it makes me wonder if any intelligence can survive for long in outer darkness, or if they won't starve to death.  Of course, it's possible that's a different kind of "intelligence" than that which is part of us.  Also of course, this is in direct conflict with the idea that those who are resurrected are immortal, and with the idea that our core self has always existed.  But I'm not sure we have a solid, accurate handle on those ideas.  What if immortality is accomplished by choosing to do those things which make one immortal?  What if our core self did not always have sentience?  (Can't imagine how the latter would work, but my inability to imagine isn't much of an argument for truth.)

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Perhaps if any sense of identity/consciousness/continuity was also stripped away from the raw intelligence, would that address this concern? Sort of like when you throw an old coin into the fire and it melts down and everything which made it a coin, eg, the image, the date, the words, all disappears. The actual metal remains, ready to be minted into a new coin, with no association with the previous coin.

As above, this is what I've heard people wondering about - can sentience be destroyed?  I've heard others express that they don't think our individual self (sentience?) existed, but that "intelligence" is a natural resource and the individual didn't exist as a sentient being until God did [something - usually merge intelligence and spirit].  If that's the case, it seems easy to argue that deconstruction and loss of sentience is possible.

In the "intelligences are sentient" proposal, both the idea that there's a finite number of such beings, and the idea that there's an infinite number of such beings presents "problems" for the mortal mind.  The idea that "intelligence(s?) is not sentient" presents problems for the "always existed" (which tends to assume individuality) idea.

In short, we have no idea what we're talking about, and we're trying to create a coherent story without having sufficient knowledge to make sense of it.  (Still interesting thought experiments, though.)

I think eternity past wherein we existed as sentient individuals is possibly the most difficult thing for the mortal mind to comprehend.  (It also seems most consistent with revealed truth as I understand it.)

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

So are we not taking God at His word that those souls who become sons of perdition who lived in mortality, and thereby are resurrected, will die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption?

Or are we applying this black-hole-dom and potential regeneration of intelligences to only Satan and his followers?

Well, first I gotta know what “His word” on this topic actually is.  

The Book of Mormon certainly says a lot about universal resurrection; but it doesn’t seem to do so from a perspective that is fully aware of the perspective laid out in D&C 76.  Nor do I remember whether it guarantees that this resurrected state will be permanent for everyone.  And scripture generally sometimes talks in superlatives/absolutes that, when you really dig into them, are more like general rules to which unstated exceptions may apply.  

I’m not saying I couldn’t be convinced against my position via a marshaling of the relevant scriptural passages.  I’m just not ready to concede that the scriptures that are really on-point in this discussion rule out the scenario.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

I believe there are two distinct problems going on in this thread.  I will call the first – theoretical physics and the second – theoretical theology.

Theoretical physics is the attempt to explain empirical evidence that falls outside of all our known physical laws and principles.   For example – there has been some talk in this thread about Black Holes.  The problem is that the term Black Hole is something outside of all our understanding of the principle and laws that we have observed and defined in the physical (empirical) universe in which we think we live and defines our existence.   But beyond the event horizon of what we call a Black Hole is a complete and total mystery.   The mathematical model that we have developed with a great deal of sophistication applies so very well in the space-time that we empirically experience – falls apart, goes completely berserk and contradicts not just itself but everything else that we thought we knew.    

The scientist that face the conundrum of our universe in all their humility that we can muster - have calculated that, at a minimum – the sum total of all we understand amounts to no more than 5% of what we are smart enough to realize is out there as of now.  Theoretical theologians are not so humble – They think they have the answer to everything but explain nothing – sometimes worse than nothing by denying principles of empirical things we all experience as otherwise.  Some are so blatantly vile that they define ignorance as pure knowledge and blame all that cannot be understood or explained - as G-d and the nature of G-d.  Thus, they pronounce faith in G-d by glorifying their ignorance and the worship of their ignorance – which is a far cry from pure light and knowledge that they say defines their actual G-d and the way true believer worship Him.

I have spent most of my life thinking I am smart.  Thinking that I am smart because I can make a living as an engineer and scientist – plus I can and have functioned in the religious community as a missionary (among other forms of ministering) converting (as I thought) many to Christ.  But my beloved wife could care less about science – she cannot even do simple algebra.  Yet she appreciates and loves the miracles that G-d sends our family daily and cannot explain why or how of anything.  She cannot debate doctrine even with the most foolish – and yet she loves them and they cannot help but love her back.  They put up with me to bask in her kindness that exists outside of being able to explain any gospel principle.   She brings more to Christ with simple love and charity than all the experts in doctrine that, like myself argue endlessly about doctrine on forums like this one.  She is the smart one – despite all the science and doctrine – she believes in and exercises love.

I do not believe the light of G-d is electromagnetic radiation nor is the darkness that Satan loves so dearly the lack of electromagnetic radiation.  Just because G-d teaches something as a metaphor does not meant we understand the whole of it.  I am concerned that many – if they could see Satan and “outer darkness” would think it the Celestial Kingdom just because of the amount of electromagnetic radiation it may use up, expel and waist.

 

The Traveler

Edited April 30, 2018 by Traveler