What is nothing?

[throng]

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

 

 

Nothing is no location.

[mooeypoo]

Nothing is no location.

I believe that is called "nowhere", not nothing.

[north]

There is nothing that is somewhere as in a space that contains nothing, but can there be nothing that is nowhere?

Ignoring the matter in the universe for the moment could the universe be a whole lot of nothing that is somewhere having originally come from a nothing that was nowhere?

 

there two definitions of " nothing " ;

 

1) nothing in the bank , nothing in the fridge for example

 

2) nothing is the complete opposite to something , which is defined as ;

 

something has physical , depth , breadth , dimension ,movement and space and the ability to manifest

 

" nothing " has none of these qualities

[mooeypoo]

there two definitions of " nothing " ;

 

1) nothing in the bank , nothing in the fridge for example

 

2) nothing is the complete opposite to something , which is defined as ;

 

something has physical , depth , breadth , dimension ,movement and space and the ability to manifest

 

" nothing " has none of these qualities

?? Where are you bringing these definitions from? Not sure I agree with the definition, to say the least.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

there two definitions of " nothing " ;

 

1) nothing in the bank , nothing in the fridge for example

 

2) nothing is the complete opposite to something , which is defined as ;

 

something has physical , depth , breadth , dimension ,movement and space and the ability to manifest

 

" nothing " has none of these qualities

 

 

?? Where are you bringing these definitions from?

 

me myself and I

 

 

Not sure I agree with the definition, to say the least.

 

not sure ? interesting

 

what are you not sure about in my definitions ?

[mooeypoo]

me myself and I

You should, by now, know better than that.

 

If you are ASSUMING or INTERPRETING or sharing your OWN PERSONAL VIEW of anything, specifically one that is unlike what general science views, you should either support it on logic and substantiation (hence - EXPLAIN why you think what you think, and how it may be supported by what we know) or write "in my opinion".

 

Otherwise the discussion is quite moot. I have nothing to debate over your subjective definitions, other than claiming they don't fit what the general definition (in the dictionaries) states.

 

There's a reason we set definitions; we need to speak a common language. If you decide to arbitrarily change these definitions, you need to explain why and how the new definition explains the term better than the current one, for us to accept it. Otherwise we are not speaking the same language.

[Martin]

?? Where are you bringing these definitions from? Not sure I agree with the definition, to say the least.

 

My experience is that Deist folks are the ones who push "nothing" into the conversation. They use the word over and over until you begin to believe there is a real thing it refers to. And then they say modern science shows that the universe sprang from nothing! Oh ho. Bingo. Gotcha. Nothing is GOD and God created the universe!

 

Normal people are not ordinarily concerned to talk about nothing.

 

North's bogus definition #2 is the giveaway:

Moo you are quite right if you smell something fishy.

North's definition #1 is OK, but #2 is something he contracted from Deist internet folks, I expect.

 

It basically describes an idea of God: "that which" has no width breadth dimension space movement physicality.

If North were a secret Deist propagandist he would talk a lot about "that which" has no material properties until you begin to believe in same as a kind of agency (not just an idea in your own mind)

and then he would start saying that Big Bang theory tells us that existence arose from that kind of "that which".

 

Incidentally not true. Big Bang does not say that universe arose from

nothing.

 

Southern Cross who used to be here used to talk a lot about Nothing. He was very poetical about. Tried to entice people into metaphysical conversation about Nothing. But he also talked about Christ bleeding on the cross and stuff. He didn't hold back. He wasn't sneaky. He outed himself as a mystic.

 

Anyway talking about "Nothing" is not science. I'm not sure it has a place at Scienceforums, even as Pseudoscience. We allow talk about Aliens in Pseudo, but metaphysics verging on religion is not your usual Flying Saucer story.

[north]

[Originally Posted by north

me myself and I

 

You should, by now, know better than that.

 

If you are ASSUMING or INTERPRETING or sharing your OWN PERSONAL VIEW of anything, specifically one that is unlike what general science views, you should either support it on logic and substantiation (hence - EXPLAIN why you think what you think, and how it may be supported by what we know) or write "in my opinion".

 

Otherwise the discussion is quite moot. I have nothing to debate over your subjective definitions, other than claiming they don't fit what the general definition (in the dictionaries) states.

 

actually your wrong

 

from my dictionary

 

nothing > 1) NOT anything ; not something ; naught

 

2) NO part, piece , or element

 

from Funk & Wagnalls standard College Dictionary

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My experience is that Deist folks are the ones who push "nothing" into the conversation. They use the word over and over until you begin to believe there is a real thing it refers to. And then they say modern science shows that the universe sprang from nothing! Oh ho. Bingo. Gotcha. Nothing is GOD and God created the universe!

 

Normal people are not ordinarily concerned to talk about nothing.

 

North's bogus definition #2 is the giveaway:

Moo you are quite right if you smell something fishy.

North's definition #1 is OK, but #2 is something he contracted from Deist internet folks, I expect.

 

It basically describes an idea of God: "that which" has no width breadth dimension space movement physicality.

If North were a secret Deist propagandist he would talk a lot about "that which" has no material properties until you begin to believe in same as a kind of agency (not just an idea in your own mind)

and then he would start saying that Big Bang theory tells us that existence arose from that kind of "that which".

 

Incidentally not true. Big Bang does not say that universe arose from

nothing.

 

Southern Cross who used to be here used to talk a lot about Nothing. He was very poetical about. Tried to entice people into metaphysical conversation about Nothing. But he also talked about Christ bleeding on the cross and stuff. He didn't hold back. He wasn't sneaky. He outed himself as a mystic.

 

Anyway talking about "Nothing" is not science. I'm not sure it has a place at Scienceforums, even as Pseudoscience. We allow talk about Aliens in Pseudo, but metaphysics verging on religion is not your usual Flying Saucer story.

 

Martin

 

you may not like the discussion of nothing personaly

 

but to bad because it comes up all the time

 

so we must deal with it , like it or not

 

north

[Mr Skeptic]

If nothing is not something, then what is something?

[north]

If nothing is not something, then what is something?

 

the complete and absolute opposite of nothing

[mrburns2012]

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.

 

I disagree.

 

Nothing is an absence of thing.

 

You can't perceive nothing. If something is perceived, it becomes something you've perceived.

 

Branes, ghosts and god are something. They're branes, ghosts, and god .

 

Ideas are not nothing. They're ideas.

[Mr Skeptic]

the complete and absolute opposite of nothing

 

Ah, but then you have a circular definition, which is meaningless.

[north]

Ah, but then you have a circular definition, which is meaningless.

 

not really

 

refer to post # 53

[allien]

If we define nothing is absence of everything, than absence of infinity parameters is nothing.

If it is nothing, than it has a meaning which is not nothing.

[Mr Skeptic]

not really

 

refer to post # 53

 

Right, because "nothing in the fridge" really explains what nothing is.

[scrappy]

Nothing doesn't exist, and I can prove it!

Is zero nothing? Proving the non-existence of zero could be tricky. (Computers would be nothing without zeros.) And proving that nothing exists is proof of the existence of nothing. Nothing more can be said about nothing, except for the words used to express it. True nothing is hard to find in nature, because it will always require something to compare it with.

[npts2020]

I disagree.

 

Nothing is an absence of thing.

 

You can't perceive nothing. If something is perceived, it becomes something you've perceived.

 

Branes, ghosts and god are something. They're branes, ghosts, and god .

 

Ideas are not nothing. They're ideas.

 

I never claimed to percieve nothing, I said I could concieve that it existed. That still does not make it a useful description of any reality, however.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

not really

 

refer to post # 53

 

Right, because "nothing in the fridge" really explains what nothing is.

 

Mr Skeptic

 

I noticed that the rest of post # 53 was not included

 

how convenient

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic

 

I noticed that the rest of post # 53 was not included

 

how convenient

 

Oops, I somehow missed that you did define "something". Sorry. However, I think your definition of "something" is non-exhaustive.

 

Let me suggest:

Nothing is that which has no positive properties. By that I mean that the only properties it has are are the ones like not existing, not being blue, etc.

[mooeypoo]

north, in post #53 you tried to use undefined circular logic to suggest a definition for an undefined term you interpreted yourself.

 

I wouldn't be boasting that post too much if I were you, and would, instead, try to actually define such term properly, as you are repeatedly asked to do.

 

 

Hit-and-run sentences might be fun and increase your post-count, but they do nothing to the validity of your claims. In fact, all they do is increase the level of confusion in this already-deteriorating thread.

 

Take responsibility over your own claims and explain them. Properly.

[mrburns2012]

I never claimed to percieve nothing, I said I could concieve that it existed. That still does not make it a useful description of any reality, however.

 

Good point I must've been under some unknown herbal influence.