The definition of nothingness exactly

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I am not a lier, I only search the evidences and where it leads and it leads me to confirm my faith.

You keep repeating something that you have been repeatedly told is not true. 

And you are inventing much of the "evidence" (such as the creation of the universe).

[Rob McEachern]

If you would like to hear what leading physicists, philosophers and theologians have to say about this topic, I suggest you look at the extensive interviews, dealing with this subject, on the Closer to Truth website: https://www.closertotruth.com/search/site/nothing

A good place to start is with "Levels of Nothing" ( https://www.closertotruth.com/articles/levels-nothing-robert-lawrence-kuhn ) defining nine different levels/definitions of what might be meant by "nothing"

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Rob McEachern
fix typo

[Itoero]

The meaning of 'nothing' changes due to the context it's in. And our idea of vacuum and quantum vacuum changes due to new measuring devices/interpretations.

[koti]

1 hour ago, Rob McEachern said:

If you would like to hear what leading physicists, philosophers and theologians have to say about this topic, I suggest you look at the extensive interviews, dealing with this subject, on the Closer to Truth website: https://www.closertotruth.com/search/site/nothing

A good place to start is with "Levels of Nothing" ( https://www.closertotruth.com/articles/levels-nothing-robert-lawrence-kuhn ) defining nine different levels/definitions of what might be meant by "nothing"

 

I like their clips, especially the ones interviewing physicists, I watched most of them if not all of them. I am a little dissapointed that they interview Leonard Susskind and a couple weeks later Deepak Chopra pops up (havent watched that one)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

From the non-zero energy of the ground state of the vacuum.

Why is the ground state not zero? Because the Heisenberg principle says the value must have a range of values, that range cannot go below zero and therefore the average value must be greater than zero. (I don't know if that is strictly accurate, but it should be close!)

There was always something, there was never nothing. I like that notion.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Randolpin said:

I am not a lier, I only search the evidences and where it leads and it leads me to confirm my faith.

You weren't accused of that (it was other who lie; you just listen), and seeking out information to confirm your beliefs is called confirmation bias. 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Rob McEachern said:

If you would like to hear what leading physicists, philosophers and theologians have to say about this topic, I suggest you look at the extensive interviews, dealing with this subject, on the Closer to Truth website: https://www.closertotruth.com/search/site/nothing

A good place to start is with "Levels of Nothing" ( https://www.closertotruth.com/articles/levels-nothing-robert-lawrence-kuhn ) defining nine different levels/definitions of what might be meant by "nothing"

 

Interesting link: Thanks and book marked!

[Randolpin]

On 2/22/2018 at 10:29 PM, Strange said:

You keep repeating something that you have been repeatedly told is not true. 

And you are inventing much of the "evidence" (such as the creation of the universe).

How can you say that it is not true. I provided counter-arguments that it can be true.

On 2/23/2018 at 3:03 AM, swansont said:

You weren't accused of that (it was other who lie; you just listen), and seeking out information to confirm your beliefs is called confirmation bias. 

That is not confirmation bias. I am open minded but the evidences points toward my faith.

On 2/22/2018 at 10:20 PM, ydoaPs said:

Despite how often apologists with no understanding of physics make this claim, it's not true. Fyi, two of the three have publicly stated that the above quoted claim is false, while the third, afaik, has not commented on the subject. 

Pro tip: Don't get your science from people who are paid to lie to gullible people

Please provide links for this.

[Strange]

Just now, Randolpin said:

How can you say that it is not true. I provided counter-arguments that it can be true.

There is no evidence that the universe was created and yet you repeatedly claim there is. 

[Randolpin]

I want to ask, why it is hard to someone here to believe in the metaphysical nothing. What I mean of metaphysical nothing is completely nothing. 

[Strange]

Just now, Randolpin said:

I want to ask, why it is hard to someone here to believe in the metaphysical nothing. What I mean of metaphysical nothing is completely nothing. 

One can believe in it. But it is not relevant to the existence of the universe.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I want to ask, why it is hard to someone here to believe in the metaphysical nothing. What I mean of metaphysical nothing is completely nothing. 

Post reported for repeated failure to address my polite and simple question about your view of nothing.

[Randolpin]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

There is no evidence that the universe was created and yet you repeatedly claim there is. 

It's the implications of the big bang and the B-G-V theorem says that the universe began to exist. You can't escape the implication of creation here because the universe began to exist and it is contingent. It requires a personal agent to exist. This is not merely assumption but what philosophy suggest.

Just now, studiot said:

Post reported for repeated failure to address my polite and simple question about your view of nothing.

Now what is your question so that I can answer. Sorry I don't intended it.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Randolpin said:

It's the implications of the big bang and the B-G-V theorem says that the universe began to exist.

No it isn't. Please stop lying like this.

1 minute ago, Randolpin said:

You can't escape the implication of creation here because the universe began to exist and it is contingent. It requires a personal agent to exist.

Reported for preaching again. 

[Randolpin]

Just now, Strange said:

No it isn't. Please stop lying like this.

Reported for preaching again. 

I am not preaching. I only answer your questions. Please be open minded

Why someone here could be banned when I am arguing with evidences. What is the reason you are banning me. Deep in my heart I am not lying. I only provided evidences and where it leads and I can provide more.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Post reported for repeated failure to address my polite and simple question about your view of nothing.

Now what is your question so that I can answer. Sorry I don't intended it.

 

On 22/02/2018 at 1:39 PM, studiot said:

Maybe so, can you provide a reference for this definition?

Let me get this quite straight.

 

nothing is defined as that which produces nothing?

 

or did you have better wording in mind, because nothing produces nothing is not a definition of nothing, unless it is recursive.

 

On 22/02/2018 at 2:18 PM, studiot said:

I have two simple points of logic to make.

1)

Given that nothing 'exists' (or existed if you prefer) and that something exists it cannot be held that nothing has no properties since there must be somewhere (even if only in my mind) where nothing exists and also somewhere (else) where something exists. So nothing has the property that it shares a boundary with something.

 

2)

To create is a transitive verb which therefore requires a creator. No problem with that.

But even the authors of the Bible and past Christian material understood this.
That is why for instance the early authors wrote the hymn line "Begotton not created"

But the existance of creators and creations does not mean that other methods/modes (non creative) of appearance are precluded.

For instance

a) spontaneous appearance

or

b) Happenstance

 

[Randolpin]

For Studiot Question-----Nothing produces nothing is actually not a definition but a metaphysical description of nothing.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Randolpin

[DrP]

Just now, Randolpin said:

Nothing produces nothing is actually not a definition but a metaphysical description of nothing.

But it doesn't really make any sense, is unprovable, gives no meaningful understanding of anything and doesn't lead to any conclusions pertaining to anything at all due to the fact that it is a made up definition with relevance to nothing. What are you trying to get at with this definition? What is your point? (and if you reply with 'well, nothing can come from nothing so BBT can't be true' we will all groan loudly and assume you are an idiot because we have been over that non argument over and over and you would just be repeating yourself again).

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Why someone here could be banned when I am arguing with evidences.

You are not using evidence.

You are claiming that the universe was created from "metaphysical nothingness" by a "special agent" (DiNozzo, I hope).

1. There is no evidence the universe was created. (You are lying about what the Big Bang model says, you are living about what the BGV theorem says)

2. No one claims that the universe was created from "metaphysical nothingness" (so this is another lie).

3. You claim that your god created the universe - there is no evidence for this and simply repeating your beliefs is known as preaching.

 

[Randolpin]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

But it doesn't really make any sense, is unprovable, gives no meaningful understanding of anything and doesn't lead to any conclusions pertaining to anything at all due to the fact that it is a made up definition with relevance to nothing. What are you trying to get at with this definition? What is your point? (and if you reply with 'well, nothing can come from nothing so BBT can't be true' we will all groan loudly and assume you are an idiot because we have been over that non argument over and over and you would just be repeating yourself again).

That is why I posted this topic in this forum because it's foundation is on metaphysics. I think we can have disagreement for the metaphysical nothing because you don't believe it. It is in fact what metaphysics suggest. It is metaphysical. If you don't rely on intuition or philosophy and you prefer more on empiricism then this topic will not go on.

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

For Studiot Question-----Nothing produces nothing is actually not a definition but a metaphysical description of nothing.

Metaphysical ): footwork will not get you out of the fact that you introduced the word definition and I specifically asked for a reference to this definition.

On 22/02/2018 at 1:20 PM, 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.

 

Quote

 

Studiot

Maybe so, can you provide a reference for this definition?

Let me get this quite straight.

 

 

#Further you seem quite happy to demand references from others, eg ydoaps

This has become particularly poignant since you later declared

 

30 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I want to ask, why it is hard to someone here to believe in the metaphysical nothing. What I mean of metaphysical nothing is completely nothing. 

 

In the face of this woefully inadequate response, my report still stand.

Edited February 26, 2018 by studiot

[Randolpin]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You are not using evidence.

You are claiming that the universe was created from "metaphysical nothingness" by a "special agent" (DiNozzo, I hope).

1. There is no evidence the universe was created. (You are lying about what the Big Bang model says, you are living about what the BGV theorem says)

2. No one claims that the universe was created from "metaphysical nothingness" (so this is another lie).

3. You claim that your god created the universe - there is no evidence for this and simply repeating your beliefs is known as preaching.

 

Answers are bolded:

You are claiming that the universe was created from "metaphysical nothingness" by a "special agent" (DiNozzo, I hope).-- This is a conclusion in philosophy from what the data suggest in cosmology.

There is no evidence the universe was created. (You are lying about what the Big Bang model says, you are living about what the BGV theorem says)----Again it is the conclusion in philosophy base on the data.

You claim that your god created the universe - there is no evidence for this and simply repeating your beliefs is known as preaching.---It is not preaching again it is a philosophical conclusion base on the data that in order for the universe to originate it must require a transecendent....

The BGV says that the universe began to exist and it is verified by Vilenkin's letter to Victor Stenger.

It is not preaching nor lying nor baseless assumptions. It's the best philosophical conclusion base on the data gathered thru science specifically cosmology. 

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Metaphysical ): footwork will not get you out of the fact that you introduced the word definition and I specifically asked for a reference to this definition.

 

 

#Further you seem quite happy to demand references from others, eg ydoaps

This has become particularly poignant since you later declared

 

 

In the face of this woefully inadequate response, my report still stand.

I am not perfect to answer your questions exactly because I am not good in the use of words in english because I am asian. So it seems to me description or definition are the same. Sorry for misunderstanding. 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

There is no evidence the universe was created. (You are lying about what the Big Bang model says, you are living about what the BGV theorem says)----Again it is the conclusion in philosophy base on the data.

There is no evidence that the universe was created. And the BGV theorem does not prove it was.

Stop lying.

[Randolpin]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no evidence that the universe was created. And the BGV theorem does not prove it was.

Stop lying.

I don't say that the BGV theorem prove it was created. I said that BGV shows that the universe began to exist.

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I am not perfect to answer your questions exactly because I am not good in the use of words in english because I am asian. So it seems to me description or definition are the same. Sorry for misunderstanding. 

So are you saying there is no reference for the definition you stated?

It was just something you made up?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Randolpin said:

I said that BGV shows that the universe began to exist.

And that is not true. As has been explained several times. 

You know there is a name for saying things that are not true?