Is nothing can produce a thing?

[Mark7]

Nothing is none at all but if we look into reality 'nothing' is not nothing at all actually. Why, what's in nothing at all? Nothing has time element actually, for example look at those who are already dead they are already nothing but still time is running for them, we know that they are already 50 years dead or 50 years nothing.

 

So we can say that 'nothingness' is moving or changing because it has time.

 

So is there a possibility that 'nothing' can produce a thing?

[DevilSolution]

Your going to wake up with a headache, your automatically taking the philosophical presumption that something can be nothing, such as a human existing and dieing, in reality nothing was never something and has lack of a time property as it lacks energy to create time, in other words inside a vacuum time wouldnt exist.

[Spyman]

The word "nothing" can mean different things in different situations, for me a true nothing really is nothing, not even time or space.

 

A dead body is clearly something even if it is dead and lifeless, nothing is not the absence of life.

 

 

I don't consider a vacuum to be nothing, a vacuum has volume and can be measured. If vacuum contains space then I think time flows there too.

[ajb]

By "nothing" one may mean vacuum, but then even this term has different meaning depending on the context.

[StringJunky]

I think it's a purely abstract concept that can have varied meanings depending on the context it's used in but the purest definition, like Spyman says, denotes the absence of anything at all and therefore cannot be visualised as an entity ... the only property nothing has is 'absence' which is another abstract concept...but some people still try and give it substance, usually some sort of spatial property, and often then become prone to conceptual errors contrary to current mainstream scientific knowledge as a result, especially in Cosmology discussions.

Edited May 11, 2011 by StringJunky

[Hal.]

20 years ago I wondered how a vacuum could have volume when it is supposed to be nothing . In 20 years from now I will do the same . If you ( the hypothetical you , not any individual poster ) try to argue that nothing ( I mean a vacuum ) can't have a volume you may end up with an E- on an exam paper . Sometimes the status quo must be accepted .

[lemur]

How can "nothing" be more than an abstract concept? By definition, you can't empirically observe something that isn't there. "Vacuum," like "cold," is only a relevant concept insofar as it contrasts with something else that causes an effect. Does a shadow disappear when you turn off the light? Was it ever present in the first place, or was it just that light shining on a different surface than the one you were looking at? Cognitively, the mind can organize perceptions into patterns and subsequently recognize deviations from the patterns, but does that mean a pattern-deviation is an empirically observable "thing?" Is a prairie a forest without trees? Is a river a liquid glacier? Is a mountain a lava-less volcano? Is water soda without flavor and carbonation?

[Mark7]

I’m actually talking of ‘absolute nothing’ not empty space.I think ‘nothing’ contains something like four sided triangle, who knows thosewe can’t imagine may actually exist there. But basing our knowledge regarding‘nothingness’ in this world I think it is always bound to the regulation ofthis dimension, like for example that ‘nothingness’ can be under the flows oftime.

 

 

[lemur]

I'm actually talking of 'absolute nothing' not empty space.I think 'nothing' contains something like four sided triangle, who knows thosewe can't imagine may actually exist there. But basing our knowledge regarding'nothingness' in this world I think it is always bound to the regulation ofthis dimension, like for example that 'nothingness' can be under the flows oftime.

How can any conscious subject perceive absolute nothingness as long as their consciousness is present?

[StringJunky]

I’m actually talking of ‘absolute nothing’ not empty space. I think ‘nothing’ contains something like four sided triangle,who knows thosewe can’t imagine may actually exist there. But basing our knowledge regarding‘nothingness’ in this world I think it is always bound to the regulation ofthis dimension, like for example that ‘nothingness’ can be under the flows oftime.

 

'Nothing' is that which does not exist. Period. You are guilty of giving 'nothing' the spatial property that I mentioned in my earlier post by saying: "I think ‘nothing’ contains something like four sided triangle,". You are giving it three dimensions. You cannot imagine nothing because there is nothing to think about.

 

I wonder if a discussion on The Ontology of Nothing would get anywhere?

Edited May 17, 2011 by StringJunky

[lemur]

I wonder if a discussion on The Ontology of Nothing would get anywhere?

You could examine how it is that human cognition is able to conceive of the ideal of absolute nothingness without recognizing itself as an artifact that is in itself "something."

[StringJunky]

You could examine how it is that human cognition is able to conceive of the ideal of absolute nothingness without recognizing itself as an artifact that is in itself "something."

 

The problem of proper conception in a lot of people's minds is maybe because our thoughts exist in a 'space' and the only way to visualise nothing is to empty ones mind but we are still left with the sense of space where our thoughts resided hence the error because this 3 dimensional construct which has boundary but no content is not removed as well.

Edited May 17, 2011 by StringJunky

[lemur]

The problem of proper conception in a lot of people's minds is maybe because our thoughts exist in a 'space' and the only way to visualise nothing is to empty ones mind but we are still left with the sense of space where our thoughts resided hence the error because this 3 dimensional construct which has boundary but no content is not removed as well.

Good point. I think it is possible, though, to eliminate the idea of the surrounding container-grid if you conceptualize matter from the inside outward. You can have force-fields interacting without a larger container as long as photons or any other possible particle cannot extend beyond the gravitation within which they are emitted. You just have to think of a gravitational-field as at the same time a very large particle AND a container for other particles/fields.

Edited May 17, 2011 by lemur

[StringJunky]

Good point. I think it is possible, though, to eliminate the idea of the surrounding container-grid if you conceptualize matter from the inside outward. You can have force-fields interacting without a larger container as long as photons or any other possible particle cannot extend beyond the gravitation within which they are emitted. You just have to think of a gravitational-field as at the same time a very large particle AND a container for other particles/fields.

 

Yes, that's how I understand the Universe models from the inside out when the more knowledgeable people here talk about it and have no real problem with apparent absence of edges in their models. I can easily put an imagined space around the model whilst simultaneously acknowledging to myself that this surrounding 'space' I created is not part of the model; just an aid to objective (outside in) visualisation.

[lemur]

Yes, that's how I understand the Universe models from the inside out when the more knowledgeable people here talk about it and have no real problem with apparent absence of edges in their models. I can easily put an imagined space around the model whilst simultaneously acknowledging to myself that this surrounding 'space' I created is not part of the model; just an aid to objective (outside in) visualisation.

This discussion is beginning to evoke echoes of some philosophy of science I haven't heard addressed explicitly in some time; namely the issue of transcendent subject positions. Just looking at your avatar reminded me that so much art/culture is designed in a way that reproduces the perspective of looking "from the outside in." I think this causes the other perspective to seem foreign, that all subject positions are immanently part of (or rather connected to) the things they are observing, even though this is more empirically accurate/objective than the perspective that there are infinite transcendent points from which all things can be observed "from the outside in." I don't mind art or consciousness constructing (the concept of) transcendent subject positions, though. In fact, I think "the God's eye view" is a top achievement in human epistemological culture. Still, I also think part of further developing the "God's eye view" involves constructing perspectives that are faithful to the knowledge that all empirically inhabitable points of view are situated within the physical systems they interact with, so I continue to pursue a model of existence that dispenses with the (abstract) notion of space and time as containers, if only for contemplation of the ultimate reality of existence.