We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we were foreseen in it.

[Thorham]

And if absolute nothingness does not exist, cannot exist? Why would you bother about it?

Because scientific nothing causes confusion. It's all to easy to think nothing is the same as absolute nothingness. It would be easier if physicists wouldn't mess with the meaning of words. They don't get to decide what nothing means, and should just stick to what it already means and use a better word for their 'nothing'.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Thorham

[Strange]

 

Based on the scientific definition of nothing, yes, but I'm talking about absolute nothingness, something of which it is unknown to be even possible to exist at all.

 

 

That sounds like a straw man argument: you are saying that something cannot come from your definition of nothing, even if it can from that used by the scientists. But I doubt any scientists are using your personal definition of nothingness.

[Eise]

Because scientific nothing causes confusion. It's all to easy to think nothing is the same as absolute nothingness. It would be easier if physicists wouldn't mess with the meaning of words. They don't get to decide what nothing means, and should just stick to what it already means and use a better word for their 'nothing'.

 

Vacuum?

[Thorham]

That sounds like a straw man argument: you are saying that something cannot come from your definition of nothing, even if it can from that used by the scientists. But I doubt any scientists are using your personal definition of nothingness.

 

No, I'm not doing that. I'm saying something can't come from nothing, where nothing just means nothing. Some scientists say that something comes from nothing, where nothing means something. I'm not the one using his own definition here, scientists are doing that.

 

Vacuum?

While that's better than redefining the word nothing, does it capture the whole meaning?

[Strange]

 

No, I'm not doing that. I'm saying something can't come from nothing, where nothing just means nothing. Some scientists say that something comes from nothing, where nothing means something. I'm not the one using his own definition here, scientists are doing that.

 

 

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of a straw man argument.

[Eise]

While that's better than redefining the word nothing, does it capture the whole meaning?

 

What is the whole meaning?

[Thorham]

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of a straw man argument.

No, it's not. You're accusing me of using his own definition, while I'm not.

 

What is the whole meaning?

 

After googling, this is less than clear to me. On the surface there seems to be no universally agreed on definition. I didn't look into it very deeply, so it's likely I missed something. One thing is very clear, however, and that is that nothing isn't nothing.

[Eise]

After googling, this is less than clear to me. On the surface there seems to be no universally agreed on definition. I didn't look into it very deeply, so it's likely I missed something. One thing is very clear, however, and that is that nothing isn't nothing.

 

This is either a contradiction, or you are using two different meanings of the word 'nothing'.

 

I think the word 'vacuum' is pretty clear: there is no matter in a vacuum.

 

You introduced the concept of absolute nothingness. If you do not know what that is your statements are... eh.. vacuous.

[Strange]

No, it's not. You're accusing me of using his own definition, while I'm not.

 

 

No, I'm just saying you are criticising the scientific concept of "universe from nothing" by using a different meaning for "nothing". Science doesn't say that the universe could have come from "absolutely nothing at all" but from a quantum (false) vacuum state.

[Thorham]

You introduced the concept of absolute nothingness. If you do not know what that is your statements are... eh.. vacuous.

Oh, you meant the definition of absolute nothingness? That's easy: Absence of anything.

 

No, I'm just saying you are criticising the scientific concept of "universe from nothing" by using a different meaning for "nothing". Science doesn't say that the universe could have come from "absolutely nothing at all" but from a quantum (false) vacuum state.

I'm not criticizing the concept of a universe from nothing, but rather the ridiculous use of the word nothing. If you mean nothing, use nothing. If you mean something, don't use nothing. It couldn't be any easier,

 

I do criticize the absurd notion of something from absolute nothingness. I've asked before what scientists think this, and I've made it clear that there's as difference between scientific nothing and absolute nothingness.

[Eise]

Oh, you meant the definition of absolute nothingness? That's easy: Absence of anything.

 

And if that does not exist, i.e. there is always the groundstate of certain Quantum fields? Does it make sense to speak of absolute nothingness, except as some very abstract idea?

[Strange]

I'm not criticizing the concept of a universe from nothing, but rather the ridiculous use of the word nothing. If you mean nothing, use nothing. If you mean something, don't use nothing. It couldn't be any easier,

 

 

That is like saying that science shouldn't use the word "field" (as in electromagnetic field) because there is no grass in it.

 

Words have a range of meanings, not just one. Get over it.

[Bender]

Do scientists even use the word "nothing" in this context, except in an attempt to explain something to a layman?

[Thorham]

Does it make sense to speak of absolute nothingness, except as some very abstract idea?

Probably not.

 

Words have a range of meanings, not just one. Get over it.

Yes, but nothing meaning something is silly.

 

Do scientists even use the word "nothing" in this context, except in an attempt to explain something to a layman?

Good question. It could just be a pop science thing.

[Enric]

On 6/2/2017 at 6:07 PM, Enric said:

We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we already "included" or "foreseen" in its laws since the beginning, when they were created. If they have also appeared alone and included us, they have a lot merit! Or not?

Abstract concept of good/bad luck is scientifically irrational and absurd for maths, but a lot of witness (and victims) think is real, absolutely real, like something beyond. It exists for us as irrational and absurd abstract concept... and real effects. It exists. I'm afraid is not an human appraisal.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Enric

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, Enric said:

Abstract concept of good/bad luck is scientifically irrational and absurd for maths, but a lot of witness (and victims) think is real, absolutely real, like something beyond. It exists for us as irrational and absurd abstract concept... and real effects. It exists. I'm afraid is not an human appraisal.

There have been some interesting scientific studies of good and bad luck. It is a fascinating subject.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-luck-would-have-it/