Randolpin Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 What is nothing? I mean the real or actual nothing. Quantum fluctuations is somewhat not nothing but something. It is pseudo-nothing. Actual nothing lacks space-time, matter, quantum states, laws of physics and information, -completely nothing. In other words, actual nothing can never create something. Any counter arguments is very welcome. Let's discuss it here for the accumulation of understanding on the reality which we exist.
StringJunky Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 It's an accounting word that describes a state of absence of something or anything at all.
zapatos Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 "Nothing" is context dependent. There is no 'real or actual' nothing. If I say I have nothing in my pocket, I am not wrong just because there is air and lint there. If I am seeking a treasure and find a chest containing old socks, it is still accurate to tell my investors that the chest contained nothing. If you want to discuss 'nothing', it is your responsibility to define it.
Randolpin Posted August 3, 2017 Author Posted August 3, 2017 Just now, zapatos said: "Nothing" is context dependent. There is no 'real or actual' nothing. If I say I have nothing in my pocket, I am not wrong just because there is air and lint there. If I am seeking a treasure and find a chest containing old socks, it is still accurate to tell my investors that the chest contained nothing. If you want to discuss 'nothing', it is your responsibility to define it. I already defined what is the actual nothing.
zapatos Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Randolpin said: I already defined what is the actual nothing. If you didn't want me to answer the question about the nature of 'nothing', then why is the title of your post "what is nothing", and why is the first sentence of your post "what is nothing"? If you've already defined it to your liking and don't wish to hear alternative ideas, then I don't think this thread is going anywhere. 1
Randolpin Posted August 3, 2017 Author Posted August 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, zapatos said: If you didn't want me to answer the question about the nature of 'nothing', then why is the title of your post "what is nothing", and why is the first sentence of your post "what is nothing"? If you've already defined it to your liking and don't wish to hear alternative ideas, then I don't think this thread is going anywhere. No, this is the real definition of nothing. The best possible definition of nothing. What I need is your arguments so I will respond to your arguments. If there is no actual or real nothing, then quantum fluctuations is not really nothing, it is something. It must therefore exist eternally because nothing can't produce something. It seems to me also that it is your assumption that there is no real or actual nothing. How are you sure of that?
zapatos Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, Randolpin said: No, this is the real definition of nothing. The best possible definition of nothing. No, it's not. It is the definition of 'nothing' that you are creating. In the context of what is in my pocket, 'nothing' allows for air and lint. 1
DrP Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 1 minute ago, zapatos said: No, it's not. It is the definition of 'nothing' that you are creating. In the context of what is in my pocket, 'nothing' allows for air and lint. Maybe there should be a definition for 'Absolute Nothing', like there is for absolute zero with temperature. Maybe it needs a new word to define it. I like the term 'Absolute Nothing' though and don't think it needs a new word. However, I don't think we fully know what 'Absolute Nothing' is from our current understanding... will it include these virtual particle popping in and out of existence? Will it include co-ordinate space? I am not asking for answers, just saying that I think it is debatable as to what it actually is and that our current knowledge doesn't give us what we need to know to define Absolute Nothing yet.
Bender Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 "What is real and actual nothing?" A useless concept, since we don't know whether it exists or has ever existed and have no way of finding out.
studiot Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 8 hours ago, Randolpin said: What is nothing? I mean the real or actual nothing. Quantum fluctuations is somewhat not nothing but something. It is pseudo-nothing. Actual nothing lacks space-time, matter, quantum states, laws of physics and information, -completely nothing. In other words, actual nothing can never create something. Any counter arguments is very welcome. Let's discuss it here for the accumulation of understanding on the reality which we exist. What about the problem of the boundary? There must be a boundary between that which is nothing and that which is something. Boundary points have a foot in both camps since one side faces nothing and the other faces something. So are you including boundary points in 'something' or in 'nothing'? Even if you include them in something, then they define or enclose nothing as that which is within the boundary. Yes DrP +1
EdEarl Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 58 minutes ago, studiot said: What about the problem of the boundary? There must be a boundary between that which is nothing and that which is something. Boundary points have a foot in both camps since one side faces nothing and the other faces something. So are you including boundary points in 'something' or in 'nothing'? Even if you include them in something, then they define or enclose nothing as that which is within the boundary. Yes DrP +1 Nothing cannot include boundary points; otherwise, it would be something with boundary points. I think the real issue is whether nothing actually exists or is only a figment of our imagination. 1
studiot Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, EdEarl said: Nothing cannot include boundary points; otherwise, it would be something with boundary points. I think the real issue is whether nothing actually exists or is only a figment of our imagination. Thank you for the support. So you think the boundary points should be excluded. Fair enough, but what about my last point which covered this case? Just because we don't know what it is / can't define it doesn't prevent it being there. We don't know what is at the core of Jupiter, but we can say that it is within the planet's outer boundary. So I am defining nothing as 'that which is within the boundary between nothing and something' Even then it performs a function. Since 'many a true word is spoken in jest' I am reminded of an old joke. An apprentice was being quizzed on a building site by an old Clerk of Works. "What is the purpose of the mortar between the bricks?" The apprentice immediately answered "That's easy. There mortar is there to stick the bricks together" "Not exactly" came the reply, "The mortar is there to hold the bricks apart" So I tell you. "Nothing is there to hold the somethings apart" Edited August 4, 2017 by studiot
EdEarl Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) OK, you believe and I'm agnostic. Can you change my mind with evidence or proof? Edited August 4, 2017 by EdEarl added evidence
studiot Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 12 minutes ago, EdEarl said: OK, you believe and I'm agnostic. Can you change my mind with evidence or proof? And you carefully avoided my comments. It's not a question of belief or agnosticism. Nor is it a question of proof, but I did offer evidence. This is the Philosophy section, which cleaves to a wider remit, in particular rational analysis of a subject. This is what I am doing since I do not consider the original issue a binary one but, like most things, appears on a sliding scale with grey areas. So back to my comment "why can you not define a term by that which it is not?" A great many things (probably more than half) are defined this way in mathematics for instance.
EdEarl Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 "why can you not define a term by that which it is not?" You defined nothing very well. The core of a planet or star exists; though, we cannot see them. However, the image I get of nothing is more like the geometry class "imaginary line."
Randolpin Posted August 4, 2017 Author Posted August 4, 2017 22 hours ago, zapatos said: No, it's not. It is the definition of 'nothing' that you are creating. In the context of what is in my pocket, 'nothing' allows for air and lint. If there is no real or actual nothing, our universe must be eternal and several unanswered questions will follow like " Why our universe is the way it is?". This is the question of the property of the universe. The universe itself can't answer why it has that specific property. Just think about it. Let's have an analogy. You see a ball. You want to ask, Why that is the property of the ball being round? The ball itself can't provide the answer for it's roundness. It must require an external explanation. It could be liken to our universe because our universe has a property. Why this is the property of the universe. The universe itself can't answer the question just like the ball. Just think about it and you will realized. Now let's move. What could be the probable reason for the property of the universe being that way? Why this the property of the universe and not the other way around? What's the answer, multiverse? If multiverse then a question still arises, Why multiverse and not the other way around? And it will only result into infinity of explanation because no matter what materialistic explanation the property question still arises. It seems to me that the best explanation is intelligence. This the property of the universe because intelligence decided or chooses it to exist. There are infinite possibilities for what the property of the universe should be but WHY this is the property of the universe we have? Therefore a choosing agent is required to answer this begging question. This is my conviction guys that I want to share to you. I am not dellusioned. I am searching the truth and this is what I found. I am just want to clarify that I am not preaching here. I am just discussing my philosophical arguments.
zapatos Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 24 minutes ago, Randolpin said: This is my conviction guys that I want to share to you. I am not dellusioned. I am searching the truth and this is what I found. I am just want to clarify that I am not preaching here. I am just discussing my philosophical arguments. I suspect you started with the conclusion, and your search was for a way to justify it in your mind.
koti Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) On 3.08.2017 at 2:59 PM, DrP said: This looks like an excelent explanation however, you did have to hit "Enter" a few times to create the larger empty space. I don't think that my "nothing" below is equivalent to your "nothing" or is it? Quote I think that two boxes (the ones above or say cardboard boxes of different size) contain the exact same "nothing" regardless of the size of the container. Im not sure how we treat math coordinate systems of different size but the key here I think is semantics again (usual in these kinds of questions) Edited August 4, 2017 by koti
JohnDoeLS Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 How do we even know if true "nothing" actually exists? Even if it does, it's either this or that. What's the point of knowing? To establish that the Big Bang isn't real? How do we even know that a true "nothing" exists before the Big Bang, how does one presume to know?
Bender Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Randolpin said: If there is no real or actual nothing, our universe must be eternal This premise is flawed, so none of the following holds.
Bender Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Randolpin said: If there is no real or actual nothing, our universe must be eternal and several unanswered questions will follow like " Why our universe is the way it is?". This is the question of the property of the universe. The universe itself can't answer why it has that specific property. Just think about it. Let's have an analogy. You see a ball. You want to ask, Why that is the property of the ball being round? The ball itself can't provide the answer for it's roundness. It must require an external explanation. It could be liken to our universe because our universe has a property. Why this is the property of the universe. The universe itself can't answer the question just like the ball. Just think about it and you will realized. Now let's move. What could be the probable reason for the property of the universe being that way? Why this the property of the universe and not the other way around? What's the answer, multiverse? If multiverse then a question still arises, Why multiverse and not the other way around? And it will only result into infinity of explanation because no matter what materialistic explanation the property question still arises. It seems to me that the best explanation is intelligence. This the property of the universe because intelligence decided or chooses it to exist. There are infinite possibilities for what the property of the universe should be but WHY this is the property of the universe we have? Therefore a choosing agent is required to answer this begging question. Why an intelligence? You are simply moving the problem. It answers nothing.
StringJunky Posted August 4, 2017 Posted August 4, 2017 Nothing is no thing. Once we define what the things that are absent we can say there is nothing.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now