The definition of nothingness exactly

[Randolpin]

Nothing is somewhat meaningless to think about because there is nothing to think about. Now I want to think about it together with you guys because it is in some way important to think about. I will draw two areas of discipline to diagnose about how they look on "nothing". First in philosophy, it is metaphysically valid that nothing produces nothing. It is obvious in our own intuition that what comes from nothing is always nothing. Nothing is in a sense "nonbeing", so nonbeing produces nonbeing in a logical manner. Now the second is in physics. I am shocked on how scientist like Krauss define nothing. I will paraphrase on what he said that "nothing" is something. How can this be? It is absurd metaphysical impossibility. If Krauss defines nothing as the quantum vacuum, therefore it is not nothing at all it is something. Quantum vacuum has properties. Why Krauss equalized Quantum vacuum to the word nothing when in fact nothing has no properties at all?

Let's talk about it guys in an open-minded way without any biases. Thank you in advance.

[Eise]

2 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Now I want to think about it together with you guys because it is in some way important to think about.

Why would that be important?

'Nothingness' is a funny substantiation of 'nothing'.  'Nothing' means the missing of something what is expected, or searched for.

'Did you find the invoices of last year?' 'No, I found nothing.'

Building your philosophy of life, based on tricks language plays on you, is building your life on quicksand.

7 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Quantum vacuum has properties

When the closest approach to vacuum is the quantum vacuum, then you have to live with it. And he suggests that such a quantum vacuum is unstable. But I let that to real physicists to comment.

[DrP]

Didn't we have this conversation a while back?   Yes we did -

I think it was concluded that your definition was important as the word gets used to mean a lot of things...  'nothing in your pocket' for example was mentioned because, although there may be 'nothing' in your pocket, there is still air.

Is a complete vacuum nothing?...  again - depends on how closely you look. You mentioned Krauss above in this light.

 

Unfortunately, many people come here trying to force a definition of 'nothing' so they can then harp on about the big bang and progress to try to rubbish the bbt because 'nothing can not come from nothing' because that is what their pastor has told them. It just shows a total mis-understanding of what the bbt is and how it has evolved over the years. It is quite dishonest when people do this because they are not interested at all in what the most up to date theory is  -  they just want to argue that 'nothing can't come from nothing' from their position of total wilful ignorance of the theory actually says. Shame when that happened because 'what is nothing' is actually an interesting question.

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

Why Krauss equalized Quantum vacuum to the word nothing when in fact nothing has no properties at all?

I'm guessing it was in the context of the classical notion of a vacuum (no atoms, therefore nothing) with a quantum notion of the vacuum

And posting this in philosophy but then leaning hard on physics for discussion material is probably not going to end up being very satisfying.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

Didn't we have this conversation a while back?   Yes we did -

 

 

 

 

Well spotted +1

[Randolpin]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Didn't we have this conversation a while back?   Yes we did -

I think it was concluded that your definition was important as the word gets used to mean a lot of things...  'nothing in your pocket' for example was mentioned because, although there may be 'nothing' in your pocket, there is still air.

Is a complete vacuum nothing?...  again - depends on how closely you look. You mentioned Krauss above in this light.

 

Unfortunately, many people come here trying to force a definition of 'nothing' so they can then harp on about the big bang and progress to try to rubbish the bbt because 'nothing can not come from nothing' because that is what their pastor has told them. It just shows a total mis-understanding of what the bbt is and how it has evolved over the years. It is quite dishonest when people do this because they are not interested at all in what the most up to date theory is  -  they just want to argue that 'nothing can't come from nothing' from their position of total wilful ignorance of the theory actually says. Shame when that happened because 'what is nothing' is actually an interesting question.

 

 

 

But it's our best scientific theories that shows that our universe came from nothing and by nothing. The big bang is the event of the creation of not only matter and energy but also spacetime itself. 

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But it's our best scientific theories that shows that our universe came from nothing and by nothing.

Doesn't say 'nothing popped out of nothing' as far as I know. I don't think anyone knows what did exactly happen. How could they possibly know?

[Silvestru]

4 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But it's our best scientific theories that shows that our universe came from nothing and by nothing. The big bang is the event of the creation of not only matter and energy but also spacetime itself. 

 The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state. 

Many people make this confusion.

[Randolpin]

8 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

 The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state. 

 

I think you mean the singularity moment of the bigbang. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that the universe is inescapably requires a beginning.

[Silvestru]

Just now, Randolpin said:

I think you mean the singularity moment of the bigbang. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that the universe is inescapably requires a beginning.

There are many models. I can give you examples of models that don't require a beginning. 

Also:

Quote

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

 

[studiot]

Randolphin,

Do you regard the verb 'to create' as a scientific word or just plain English?

[DrP]

The bear has it! People repeat the 'nothing can't come from nothing' argument, even after they have been told that this isn't what the theory says. So...  are we going to talk about 'nothing'   or is this a trick to repeat the same old non sense argument against BBT?

 

 

Even if it did 'come out of nothing'...  as you pointed out - we don't know what that nothing is/was.

[Randolpin]

5 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

There are many models. I can give you examples of models that don't require a beginning. 

 

But the B-G-V theorem holds regardless of any model like oscillating models etc. It shows regardless of the model inescapably, our universe requires a beginning.

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But the B-G-V theorem holds regardless of any model like oscillating models etc. It shows regardless of the model inescapably, our universe requires a beginning.

Can a life form that lives in a flame have a concept of it's universe before it's universe was a flame? Can it even begin to fathom that the plasma universe it is in was once a different state of matter? How can a plama come from just a block of wood?  (Sorry - this analogy is obviously a bit of a strawman, but as NOONE knows what state the universe was in before T=0 as we know it then it is all speculation anyway....  I'll bail out now and let more experienced cosmologists talk to you, if they will entertain you, it isn't my field. Just challenging it with 'nothing can't come from nothing' though will probably result in eventual ridicule though if you don't change your tack.  

[Randolpin]

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

Can a life form that lives in a flame have a concept of it's universe before it's universe was a flame? Can it even begin to fathom that the plasma universe it is in was once a different state of matter? How can a plama come from just a block of wood?  (Sorry - this analogy is obviously a bit of a strawman, but as NOONE knows what state the universe was in before T=0 as we know it then it is all speculation anyway....  I'll bail out now and let more experienced cosmologists talk to you, if they will entertain you, it isn't my field. Just challenging it with 'nothing can't come from nothing' though will probably result in eventual ridicule though if you don't change your tack.  

T=0 meaning this is the boundary between the timeless and time.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

Nothing is somewhat meaningless to think about because there is nothing to think about. Now I want to think about it together with you guys because it is in some way important to think about.

Why do you think it is important?

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

I am shocked on how scientist like Krauss define nothing.

Wow. Words have a range of different meanings. Shocking.

Quote

Why Krauss equalized Quantum vacuum to the word nothing when in fact nothing has no properties at all?

Why not? An absence of mass and energy sounds like a good use of the word "nothing" to me.

You might walk into a room which has walls, ceiling, air, carpet, paintings on the walls, etc but no furniture, and say "there is nothing in here". Not exactly a shocking use of the word.

37 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But it's our best scientific theories that shows that our universe came from nothing and by nothing.

There is no such theory. There is some speculation, but that's all. There is no evidence for such a thing.

Quote

The big bang is the event of the creation of not only matter and energy but also spacetime itself. 

There is no evidence for any such event.

[Randolpin]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Why not? An absence of mass and energy sounds like a good use of the word "nothing" to me.

You might walk into a room which has walls, ceiling, air, carpet, paintings on the walls, etc but no furniture, and say "there is nothing in here". Not exactly a shocking use of the word.

But your definition of nothing is not the metaphysical definition of nothing.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

There is no such theory. There is some speculation, but that's all. There is no evidence for such a thing.

There is no evidence for any such event.

It's the implications of the big bang model. And also again B-G-V theorem suggest that our universe is inescapably began to exist.

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that the universe is inescapably requires a beginning.

No it doesn't. That is (yet another) Creationst lie. Those guys are worse than Trump.

https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/

17 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But the B-G-V theorem holds regardless of any model like oscillating models etc. It shows regardless of the model inescapably, our universe requires a beginning.

As you have already been told this is not true, why are you repeating it? This is typical Creationist behaviour: keep repeating the lie, even when people show it is not true.

9 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

T=0 meaning this is the boundary between the timeless and time.

No necessarily.

4 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But your definition of nothing is not the metaphysical definition of nothing.

Words have multiple meanings. Get over it. (And get a dictionary.)

4 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

It's the implications of the big bang model. And also again B-G-V theorem suggest that our universe is inescapably began to exist.

No.

And, no.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

in fact nothing has no properties at all?

Let's talk about it guys in an open-minded way without any biases. Thank you in advance.

 

I am trying to be open minded about things, I really am.

 

So I asked a civil question, which I will repeat for your convenience, after reminding you that the rules here, and common civility require you to attempt an answer.

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

Randolphin,

Do you regard the verb 'to create' as a scientific word or just plain English?

 

For you information,

Nothing may or may not have properties.

I think this has been discussed before.

Or is you mind already biased?

[DrP]

I don't think you can say there was nothing before T=0...   1 - how would you possibly know.  2 - what WAS there could have been totally different to what can after.  Maybe it was empty space and something from somewhere spilled in by chance...  might have taken a few googleyperplexing years or more....  but how could we possibly know with the information (and misinformation) and the instruments we have today? Where did it spill in from? Expecting an answer to what was before the BB is just incredibly naïve, and using our ignorance of what was there to invent some fiction about it being created by a being that loves US in particular (a drip in the ocean of all 'creation') is rather snake oily..  drop the con you have been fed - you will be happier for it.  Don't let your pastor tell you that you will be miserable without god   -  you have lived you whole life with out it anyway, lol. It is in your 'heart' not in your reality.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by DrP

[Randolpin]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I am trying to be open minded about things, I really am.

 

So I asked a civil question, which I will repeat for your convenience, after reminding you that the rules here, and common civility require you to attempt an answer.

 

For you information,

Nothing may or may not have properties.

I think this has been discussed before.

Or is you mind already biased?

But the metaphysical definition of nothing is that nothing produces nothing therefore it has no properties that will operate to produce something. Let's base on the metaphysical aspect.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But the metaphysical definition of nothing is that nothing produces nothing therefore it has no properties that will operate to produce something. Let's base on the metaphysical aspect.

Is that a joke??? I'm not sure but I want to laugh... 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But the metaphysical definition of nothing is that nothing produces nothing therefore it has no properties that will operate to produce something. Let's base on the metaphysical aspect.

OK. If we only discuss that metaphysical meaning then this obviously has nothing do with cosmology, so we can drop that line of discussion. 

Now what do you want to discuss about your "metaphysical nothing"? To be honest, there doesn't seem much to say about it. Maybe nothing to say.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Strange

[koti]

5 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But the metaphysical definition of nothing is that nothing produces nothing therefore it has no properties that will operate to produce something. Let's base on the metaphysical aspect.

Lets not.

[DrP]

I think I was right - the whole thread is a trick to turn the conversation into a creation debate because of the 'proof' that 'nothing can come from nothing'...   We have been down the same road over and over with the same guy and many others.