Why isn't the 'Theory of Nothing' more popular?

[Gil Berry]

Over the past few years, I convergently stumbled upon a theory extremely similar to the one presented in Russel Standish's 2006 book 'The Theory of Nothing.' I labeled my 'The Great Contradiction Model,' since it seems like the universe can instead be characterized by a single contradiction (or singularity), containing everything and nothing at the same time. I've been trying to condense my findings into a document, but I seem to lose motivation because there is an inherent lack of interest in previous writings on similar theories.

To me, these theories hold some of the most incredible wisdom I have ever come across, and if not further, they potentially describe reasons for our existence. So why are they ignored but other philosophies with less truth latched onto?

While it could be a matter of advertising, I think it is more fundamental: to live is to be in ignorance of understanding. We've all heard the 'ignorance is bliss' line. I think consciousness is fundamentally defined as being abstracted from the absolute, contradictory, infinite truth of our universe. To live is to believe in a special universe, not one of millions, therefore, this theory dies because it is unimportant, if not harmful, to know about it.

If anyone wants to talk with me about this, I would love to elaborate more. 

[Russell Standish]

I do lurk on this list, and happy to discuss related matters. Others
on this list are interested as well. But I am busy with other things,
so may be little delayed from time to time.

As for these theories aren't popular, we are hardwired to believe in
an objective reality external to ourselves, and these theories really
require one to abandon that in favour of intersubjective
consistency. For many, this is too bitter a pill to swallow. Just a thought.

Cheers

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
> to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list
> /3c832e9e-4b92-42aa-aac7-e2dcabb1c90en%40googlegroups.com.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gil Berry]

Thanks for the reply Dr. Standish (and sorry for the slow reply on my end, university has been busy these past weeks for me too).

I would definitely love to discuss the ideas in a 'Theory of Nothing' and also how your ideas have evolved since writing that book. A part of this theory that is neglected is the emotional consequences of it. I think it's easy to understand its mechanical workings, but hard to accept its semi-nihilistic consequences in the heart. I wrote a fiction novel earlier this year that examines the thoughts of a character discovering these ideas and then reaping the consequences of them, but I don't think my job is done expressing it, as the theory has many perspectives it can be approached from.

When you are less busy (in a few weeks or however long it takes), would you be willing to call? I could use some guidance on what to study next on these theories, as I feel like I can potentially find a way to popularize them (or, potentially, find a reason not to popularize them, if that is what life requires).

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Nov 01, 2025 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Gil Berry wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Dr. Standish (and sorry for the slow reply on my end,
> university has been busy these past weeks for me too).
>
> I would definitely love to discuss the ideas in a 'Theory of Nothing' and also
> how your ideas have evolved since writing that book. A part of this theory that
> is neglected is the emotional consequences of it. I think it's easy to
> understand its mechanical workings, but hard to accept its semi-nihilistic
> consequences in the heart. I wrote a fiction novel earlier this year that
> examines the thoughts of a character discovering these ideas and then reaping
> the consequences of them, but I don't think my job is done expressing it, as
> the theory has many perspectives it can be approached from.
>
> When you are less busy (in a few weeks or however long it takes), would you be
> willing to call? I could use some guidance on what to study next on these
> theories, as I feel like I can potentially find a way to popularize them (or,
> potentially, find a reason not to popularize them, if that is what life
> requires).
>

Not sure when that's going to happen :P

Sure we could do a call. What time zone are you in? I'm AEDT right now (UTC+11).
Suggest some times and we'll work something out.

Not a lot to report on since I did that book as a long-service leave
project. The main thing is Marcus Mueller's work, which pouts a lot of
those ideas on a more formal footing. I did also try to refine some of
the quantum theory argument as well, but it didn't quite work out, so
that work has languished for 6 years or so. It also relates to some
"derivations" showing branch-counting is incompatible with the Born
rule, which IMHO is a bit if a misunderstanding of what the MWI is all
about. But I just haven't found the time to read the relevant
literature.

I also have a nice fictional plot idea based on these that could be
turned into a novel, or even a fil eventually. Trouble is, I'm not a
fiction-writer - I tried to knterest my son in it, as he is much
better at that sort of writing than I am, but he is currently busy
saving the world from fossil fuel addiction.

Cheers

> /46ad9ed5-5968-4bf4-b4e7-e07717fa651bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Gil Berry]

Totally understand with you being busy. I'm UTC-8 in California. I'm free any time on Friday and the weekends, and every day other than Wednesday before noon my time.

If you're curious, here is the novel (I'll send you the epub or PDF via gmail for free, it's just on Amazon for distribution reasons): https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-All-Stars-Gil-Berry-ebook/dp/B0FGXFZZK9?ref_=ast_author_mpb

It centers on a fictional machine that allows spatial travel via collapsing an observer and then restoring them, sort of like making someone go to sleep but then waking them up somewhere new. It doesn't go in-depth to any of the science, just explores the effects of it.

For me, at least, fiction is my only real hope of getting these ideas into the limelight. If you become less busy and do want to develop your plot idea further, I could help guide you if you want.

[Alastair]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 4:38:50 AM UTC+1 Russell Standish wrote:

I do lurk on this list, and happy to discuss related matters. Others
on this list are interested as well. But I am busy with other things,
so may be little delayed from time to time.

As for these theories aren't popular, we are hardwired to believe in
an objective reality external to ourselves, and these theories really
require one to abandon that in favour of intersubjective
consistency. For many, this is too bitter a pill to swallow. Just a thought.

Cheers

There is no reason to swallow the pill in the first place if there are question marks over the theories. For ToN, dismissal of objective external reality can be challenged by considering one of the core statements made in the book:

'Not only is our psyche emergent from the electrical and chemical goings on in the brain, but the laws governing that chemico-electrical behaviour in turn depend on our psyche.'(p8-9, 2011 edition).

I can't see how the first and second parts can be made compatible in any of the suggested types of plenitude (even with the help of the Anthropic Principle). The first part of the quote essentially provides the external objective reality point of view, with consciousness as dependent on the physical reality of a brain in a law-based cosmos. The second part either seems to require our own psyches as each being subject to physical laws internal to each of our consciousnesses (or Observer Moments), or else having each of our psyches as existing under some entirely different set of rules, with the psyches somehow being fooled into thinking that our qualia/percepts reflected some actual external physical world, in a Matrix-like scenario, either under another intelligence's control or our own subconscious. If we then factor in the plenitude into any of these situations (so not Matrix-like as such now) this second part of the quote seems to require in one way or another a many worlds of consciousnesses (or OMs), with each consciousness being in any event a very complex entity with thoughts, emotions etc included; but without any explanation (though see below) for how that complex world came about, nor for the corresponding plenitude of worlds, so providing a very contrived picture of reality at the most fundamental level.

Unfortunately, other plenitudes suggested (all possible bitstrings and all possible descriptions) don't really help - they stay only as abstract (even after internal 'bootstrapping' or where non-concrete computing or equations are concerned), and can at best only represent reality, not intrinsically become it (or explain it) ie one can't just reify the abstract without justification, whether that reality is deemed physical or consciousness based. Also, bitstrings are multiply interpretable (and if only by a 'fundamental' consciousness, this becomes a circular argument); and descriptions as used in the book effectively refer to qualia/percepts, which require an observer of some kind, leading to another contrived plenitude of all possible observers. Further, I am not sure about how to relate the QM state vector (psi) to an OM where the latter in theory could be an indirectly perceived red-shifted photon originating from close to an apparent Big Bang. (0ne Big Bang for each OM in the OM-plenitude???)

Together with other question marks, it thus seems to me that an insufficiently good case has been made to reject external objective reality.

ToN itself is a remarkable book covering a huge range of topics in an accessible way, and I am in agreement with many aspects of it, though not with its central idealist approach [which due to a misunderstanding I earlier only agreed to a physicalist equivalent (re p61)].

If you have the time I would be happy to be shown where I am going wrong in the above, if that turns out to be the case, as it could help clarify my own thinking.

Thanks

Alastair