What does this mean? Well it means that the wavelength actually determines the color you see. If you have a low energy wavelength then the wavelength is long and the light becomes more red. See a reoccurring theme here? Energy?

This is not entirely accurate once again.

Well here is the question then, can matter exist without time?

If time and matter are interwoven then they are not mutually exclusive.
If they are not mutually exclusive then by all means matter/energy effect time.

But where have you heard that before?

Are you sure you want to keep playing this game?

So what is your point? what is that say about "duality" if anything

Then you don ` t understand nothing. The uncertain principle don ` t work here, because there is still virtual particles.

How is time and matter "interwoven"? What is that even mean?

How does matter effect time, or do you mean space-time?

It is true that i think you don` t know what you are talking about at all. Let` s say I am not impressed by your knowledge at all. What really bothers me is how you give an answer without even thinking about what other people think on the matter, or how precisely did you yourself come up with your answer.

A physical system of no properties

If all particles of mass, space, time, energy and so forth were depleted from a non-particulate piece of energy, this would transition from a state with n particles to a state with little to no particles which would indicate that n=0.

In a monochromatic electromagnetic field, there is a system of n photons with equal energy. The field is equivalent to a harmonic oscillator in which its quantum solutions of energy levels can be represented in layers and each layer represents a field of one more proton than the layer below. Further down, a field of no protons is not zero-energy but zero-point energy

I am saying that duality is just the convince of understanding but not actual reality

Well that might be but regardless of the uncertainty principle the discussion is on something rather than nothing which is right in the face of the uncertainty principle.

basically implies that they can not exist without the other.

Well I am not exactly convinced that matter actually does effect time. I have an experiment idea that might help prove it. It is complicated to explain so I won't here

Are you sure this isn't some sort of self reflection?

Same here TickTock, I'm afraid we've reverted from metaphysics back to physics.

Then you don ` t understand nothing

Let` s say I am not impressed by your knowledge at all.

This does not matter a bit.

What does not matter a bit? That this topic has reverted from metaphysics to physics? Or that the original post itself does not matter?

No, i mean physics does not matter to why there is something rather than nothing.

Now I'm really confused. This seems contradictory somehow. Is matter not dependent on physics?

I'm not very smart, so if this could be explained to me in small words I'd be most grateful.

Vectorcube - To bring this thread back into focus, it would be useful if you could briefly define the following terms as you have used them:

(a) world;
(b) possible world;
(c) empty world;
(d) nothing;
(e) natural state.

.

In physics, people try to find regularities in observations( usually from experimenrss). The end result is a set of hypothesis that takes the form of mathematical equations that summerizes these regularities. In this whole process, it tells us what the world "is" according to our observations( experiements)..

So Physics doesn't use the standard model of The Scientific Method which, as far as I know, is generally accepted as:

1) Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5) Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6) Communicate Your Results

I'm confused again because you say that the end result is a set of hypothesis (sic) that takes the form of mathematical equations.

The standards of physics cannot be used to analyze metaphysics. In other words, what is set as given in physics, the basic ontology, is only one of many equally plausable ontologies in metaphysics.

To continuously attempt to analyze and solve the concepts of "nothing" and the reasons for existence becomes just as redundant as attempting to solve the meanings of and for God. Although it is essentially the same scenario, "God" could replace the terms "nothing" and "something." It once again draws an infinite circle of calculations and theories with no solution because "nothing" and "something" and it's reasons for being cannot be universally and logistically justified.

Sorry. I will replay later. In the mean time. You can read:

Scientific Explanation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I think you will benefit greatly by deeply studying the context from the above link.