What is nothing?

[Mr Skeptic]

I propose' date='

Nothing is that which has no properties.[/quote']

Isn't it a property to have no properties?

 

You got it! Therefore, "nothing" isn't nothing. Which makes sense to me.

[southerncross]

YT 2095

You said, “Zero is only a place holder”, not to be confused with the absence of anything.

 

So zero is the place holder in space and time, a point is nowhere by itself, it needs to be somewhere in relation to another point. A point by itself cannot say it is HERE as this has no meaning, for HERE to have meaning there would have to be a THERE to be the place holder so you could say HERE is distance X from THERE.

 

If you drew a number line with only the zero marked on it, it would still give more information than a number line with only a One marked on it. Zero would at least be a starting point where the One by itself would be meaningless.

 

This thought seems only to address space so I was thinking the zero place holder for the time part of space-time would have to be the NOW. So is zero, in regards to space-time, a HERE and NOW point, which is a meaningless point without a THERE and THEN point to be relative to?

 

Is HERE at zero and is NOW at zero, is HERE a place or just a place holder and is NOW a moment or just a moment holder?

 

Is HERE and NOW by itself nothing?

 

P.S. Thanks for all the other great responses and the interesting definitions, I wonder if Mr Skeptics circular argument stands when the NOTHING in question is strictly to do with space-time.

[throng]

YT 2095

You said, “Zero is only a place holder”, not to be confused with the absence of anything.

 

So zero is the place holder in space and time, a point is nowhere by itself, it needs to be somewhere in relation to another point. A point by itself cannot say it is HERE as this has no meaning, for HERE to have meaning there would have to be a THERE to be the place holder so you could say HERE is distance X from THERE.

 

If you drew a number line with only the zero marked on it, it would still give more information than a number line with only a One marked on it. Zero would at least be a starting point where the One by itself would be meaningless.

 

This thought seems only to address space so I was thinking the zero place holder for the time part of space-time would have to be the NOW. So is zero, in regards to space-time, a HERE and NOW point, which is a meaningless point without a THERE and THEN point to be relative to?

 

Is HERE at zero and is NOW at zero, is HERE a place or just a place holder and is NOW a moment or just a moment holder?

 

Is HERE and NOW by itself nothing?

 

P.S. Thanks for all the other great responses and the interesting definitions, I wonder if Mr Skeptics circular argument stands when the NOTHING in question is strictly to do with space-time.

 

 

If you say here you specify the space you occupy. If you say now you specify the moment.

 

To create a point that is exact, your essence would be travelling at c giving you infinite density and a zero time.

 

Then you'd have the dilema of being several places at once, hence being infinitely 'undense' at the same moment.

 

The moment you occupy at c is the only moment and your position is everywhere.

 

So, now is the only thing that exists and everywhere is here.

[YT2095]

Zero is placeholder digit, without it "1" could mean 10 or 100 or any other quantity of Zeros after it.

That is what i meant.

[southerncross]

So zero for time is the place holder for now?

And is zero for space the place holder for here?

 

i.e. Here and Now in space-time is the relative zero point FOR every point?

 

 

Like this:

 

<...00000000000000000...> the universe.

 

But relative to any particular point in this universe zero is the only here and now like this:

 

<...54321012345...>

 

Relative to the universe:

 

This <...00000000000...> = just 0, in different ways it is both everything and nothing.

i.e.

Relative to a particular point it is the only here and now in time-space and relative to the universe it is every here and now in space-time(Every point being just 0 and just a place holder for particular points), the truth and the reality may be that both are correct depending on the relative perception.

 

 

 

So speculating but in keeping with the above:

 

Every point may be a meaningless zero point of here and now, a moment without time and a point without space. (would this be a definition for nothing, is nothing simply a place holder for something??)

i.e.

A moment without time: the zero point by itself, a place holder for time to start but which has yet to start-NOW.

A point without space: again a zero point by itself, a place where space would start but has yet to start-HERE.

 

Could it be that the relationship that is between 0 and 1... in both space and time cases is what creates our preception of space-time?

 

 

 

So zero for time is the place holder for now?

And is zero for space the place holder for here?

Edited November 7, 2008 by southerncross

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the easiest answer to this question is that nothing isn't.

[southerncross]

Where is here and when is now, is it not the relationship between points of space-time that have any meaning? Am I not only -here and now- in relation to other points?

That is it is not possible to be here and now without a relationship, without being relative to some other here and now. The question is what is the difference between one here and now and another here and now?

 

3333333

3222223

3211123

3210123

3211123

3222223

3333333

 

0 is the place holder for here and now and space and time exist only in the relationship with other points. The universe is in total balance, 3 is three places from 0 just as 0 is three places from 3.

 

Relative to all points those points are all here and now.

 

0000000

0000000

0000000

0000000

0000000

0000000

0000000

 

Which is just 0 when you are not being relative to a particular point.

Space is only the relationship between different, yet in balance, points of time.

 

GRAVITY?

 

Upset this balance

3333333

3222223

3211123

321012X

3211123

3222223

3333333

 

By blocking the expansions from 0 with matter X would you not get gravity?

 

Nothing by itself is nothing but is nothing having a relationship with itself at different moments (moments in balance with one another) giving space and time a reality?

 

QUANTUM?

If there is an observer, would that observation not reset 0 at the point of observation?

 

NOTHING?

 

Is this not just a place holder for something? That is doesn’t here and now (space and time) not even exist except in the relationship.

 

Crazy crazy stuff, nails go in each hand and one big one through both feet.

[throng]

Nothing doesn't exist so it is in fact not nothing.

[rueberry]

nothing? I'm amazed how such a topic as nothingness can invite so many ideas on a topic so simple. Nothing is simply that, nothing. not a thing. Yet, here we are extrapolating such concepts as its manifestation in so far as to the outer reaches of time and space. Very good question, though. It has prompted many an opinion and led to many interesting concepts. Very good question on a matter pertaining to no thing. Very good indeed and, I say this without jest or critical feeling.

[johan01]

interesting thread , ive been talking on the expanding universe , with similair thought process .

 

I choose 1 .

 

I EXIST , nothing is the absense of me. And because i exist , nothing does not exist.

 

I suppose one could take it further .. everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

 

Is this not The " secret" ?.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that when you are dead, the rest of us will still exist just fine.

[Royston]

everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

 

That's quite the claim.

 

Is this not The " secret" ?.

 

Well you should know, I thought everything existed, because you exist.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Snail
typo

[falcon9393]

Me:

Nothing is the absence of something

science proves that dark is the absence of light

DUH!!!

 

Internet:

 

Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimpressive thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None

[rueberry]

I came across an interesting research that is being done regarding a scientist who came up with a device that was able to halt the speed of light down to zero, Please forgive me for not remembering the scientist and giving her her due credit. I will try to get that. This was a piece on the Discovery channel and I was perhaps more interested in the topic rather than the people involved. Again, I apologize to you and to her for my lack of due credit at this time. That being said and, given the topic of what is nothing, could nothingness be a result or occur when light is at zero speed? Any input or postulations?

 

here is the credit for the above regarding stopping the speed of light...

 

 

Lene Hau and her colleagues created a new form of matter to bring a light beam to a complete stop, then restart it again. (Staff photo by Kris Snibbe)

[granpa]

english is a flawed language. the fundamental unit of existance is the 'event'. events 'happen'. so the question should be does 'nothing' happen?

 

also the universe IS everything. even though it is finite it is still everything. even though it has a beginning it is still everything. it always was everything. it always will be everything. even when it was just a point it was still everything.

 

it didnt come from nothing. it came from everything.

[mooeypoo]

english is a flawed language.

 

Which is why physicists use math to explore and explain the universe.

[Don Blazys]

The concept of "nothing" or "no thing" is simply inconcievable.

 

By definition, there is no frame of reference by which it can be communicated or even experienced.

 

It simply doesn't exist, and that fact/truth, in and of itself, forces existence into being and sustains all other concepts and perhaps even the physical universe as well.

 

Don.

[npts2020]

The concept of "nothing" or "no thing" is simply inconcievable.

 

Don.

 

Well I can conceive it. I can also conceive a great number of other not-so-well-defined things that may or may not exist in reality, branes, ghosts, and god come immediately to mind.

[pioneer]

If we take 1 divided by 0 this is infinity by definition. If you look at this logically, it does not make any sense. If something is divided by nothing or we rip it apart zero times, how do we get infinite? If I divide 1 by 100 I get 100 subunits. If I use 0 instead of 100, I should get zero subunits and not infinite subunits unless 0=infinity.

 

Try this experiment at home. Take 1 piece of bread, and don't divide it or divide it 0 times, and then count how many pieces of bread that remain. There is still one piece. Math messed up by not doing this experiment. What were they thinking to allow you to not separate something and still be able to form an infinite number of pieces.

 

If we take 1 and divide by 1/2 we get 2. Take a piece of bread and tear it only a half way through. The result is ambiguous. It is still one piece of bread, with a tear half way through. The question is does that make it one or two pieces? To satisfy the observational debate I would take an average with the result being 1.5. Some math conventions were not based on the use of experiments.

 

I don't mean to change the topic. I was showing how dividing something by nothing becomes infinite based on math. This gives nothing sort of a special ability that something can not do. So nothing rules the universe. For example, atoms are mostly space or nothing. If I divide the atom by nothing I can get an infinite number of subunits with each being nothing. I

Edited December 11, 2008 by pioneer

[mooeypoo]

pioneer, your experiment would've been truly representative if division represented number of cuts. If it did, then, truly, division by zero would mean there would be zero cuts, and you would be left with 1 piece.

 

But division does not mean number of cuts. It means number of pieces. What is a zero-piece? it is, arguably (arguably not because it's untrue, but because it's not-intuitive and not quite physical), nothing. How do you cut something to achieve zero-pieces?

 

You can't. It's infinity. Mathematically. There's also a mathematical proof, I believe, but I will allow the math wizzes here do this instead, since I'm never sure I fully understand all the steps of it.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Dividing by zero is either positive or negative infinity. Since it could be either, depending on if you take the limit of 1/x as x approaches zero from the positive or negative numbers, it is considered undefined.

[Sayonara]

Isn't it a property to have no properties?

 

Only if you have a checkbox labelled "no properties?".

 

Otherwise, no.

 

I think the easiest answer to this question is that nothing isn't.

 

I think the biggest clue is in the word itself. Nothing. "No thing".

[johan01]

Originally Posted by johan01

everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

That's quite the claim.

 

Originally Posted by johan01

Is this not The " secret" ?.

Well you should know, I thought everything existed, because you exist.

12-10-2008 05:07 AM

 

 

the point here is , it does not only hold for me , but for all concious beings

if you do not exist , you are nothing.

[npts2020]

Originally Posted by johan01

everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

That's quite the claim.

 

Originally Posted by johan01

Is this not The " secret" ?.

Well you should know, I thought everything existed, because you exist.

12-10-2008 05:07 AM

 

 

the point here is , it does not only hold for me , but for all concious beings

if you do not exist , you are nothing.

 

So consciousness=existance? If I am sedated for an operation, does that mean I cease to exist for a period of time?

[D H]

everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

Solipsism and science do not mix well. Science inherently assumes the world out there is real.

 

If we take 1 divided by 0 this is infinity by definition. ... This gives nothing sort of a special ability that something can not do. So nothing rules the universe. For example, atoms are mostly space or nothing. If I divide the atom by nothing I can get an infinite number of subunits with each being nothing. I

Sophistry and science do not mix well, either, particularly when the sophistry is based on a faulty assumption.