Can nothing not exist?

[wucko]

Answering the question "Can nothing exist?":

 

"nohing is" and "everything is not" against "everything is" and "nothing is not". the second statement is a paradox, the firs isnt.

 

to me, this would imply, that the original question isnt correct, that its opposite IS the question: "can nothing not exist"

Edited May 4, 2012 by wucko

[questionposter]

Technically "nothing" existed before the universe was created, but otherwise no, because the vacuum of space contains both the fabric of space-time, light, cosmic background radiation and virtual pair particles as well as normal virtual force carrier particles.

[zapatos]

Technically "nothing" existed before the universe was created, but otherwise no, because the vacuum of space contains both the fabric of space-time, light, cosmic background radiation and virtual pair particles as well as normal virtual force carrier particles.

How do you know the universe was created?

[questionposter]

How do you know the universe was created?

 

Never said I knew, but based on current evidence it's a likely scenario.

[anotherfilthyape]

It is a fact that there is existence (cogito ergo sum), the question whether non-existence is an alternative to this would be denied from the many worlds-interpretation theory unless you take nothing as a single alternative, with little odds of agaisnt many others with greater odds.

[wucko]

this debate exists, if nothing exists - this debate does not exist. Now, can nothing exist? -> false question (this debate exists) -> can nothing NOT exist?

 

if yes: everything can exist (including nothing), but a lingual cution is needed:, this doesnt mean "yes, nothing can not exist", but the opposite "yes, nothing can not-exist"

if no: nothing exists, again: nothing can not not-exsist, int this case nothing always exists, and anything else can not exist.

 

if we are to agree uppon our own existance, then the answer is: can nothing exist is a false question, the right question is "can nothing not exist", and the answer is yes, nothing can not-exist.

 

And to avoid false reasoning from "X can not exist" within "X can not-exist":

 

if we are to agree uppon our own existance, then the answer is: can nothing be in existance is a false question, the right question is "can nothing not be in existance", and the answer is yes, nothing can not-be in existance (it is 'able' to not exist, but it can exist or not)

 

 

 

perhapse i should re-open the problem:

 

the question "can nothing exist" is a false question, since if we examine both options (of the answer) we proceed:

 

 

1st option: "Nothing does exist" therefore "everything does not exists" -> the answer 'yes, nothing can exist - but everything cant'

vs

2nd option: "Nothing does not exist" therefore "everything does exist" -> the answer 'no, nothing can not exist - but everything can, except nothing'

 

since in 2nd option, we must claim a paradox: "that everything does exist, while nothing does not", the question at hand is "Can nothing not exist?"

 

And the answer is: the question "can nothing exist" is a false question , but, while everything can exist, yes, nothing can not-exist, but it can also exist.

does it exist then? it can not-exist, but it can also exist.

It is a fact that there is existence (cogito ergo sum), the question whether non-existence is an alternative to this would be denied from the many worlds-interpretation theory unless you take nothing as a single alternative, with little odds of agaisnt many others with greater odds.

 

one must stop and say "nothing exists" and then go further in answering "Can nothing exist"

Edited May 6, 2012 by wucko

[ydoaPs]

Technically "nothing" existed before the universe was created

 

 

There was no time at which the universe did not exist. "Before the universe" is meaningless.

[questionposter]

There was no time at which the universe did not exist. "Before the universe" is meaningless.

 

I don't see how you can know that unless you were there at and before the creation of the universe. There is much evidence to support the notion that the universe was at one time an infinitely dense point containing all matter and energy, and since the universe by definition contains everything, before the existence of that point that was the universe, there could only have been nothing.

I'm not saying I know it's true, but if it is, then it would mean before the universe was created there could only have been nothing.

Although I suppose since technically time didn't exist before the universe that the universe has technically always existed because there was no way to count the time it wasn't in existence.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

I don't see how you can know that unless you were there at and before the creation of the universe. There is much evidence to support the notion that the universe was at one time an infinitely dense point containing all matter and energy, and since the universe by definition contains everything, before the existence of that point that was the universe, there could only have been nothing.

I'm not saying I know it's true, but if it is, then it would mean before the universe was created there could only have been nothing.

Although I suppose since technically time didn't exist before the universe that the universe has technically always existed because there was no way to count the time it wasn't in existence.

 

Big Bounce

[ydoaPs]

I don't see how you can know that unless you were there at and before the creation of the universe.

 

It's true by definition. Time is just a separation of states. You can't be separated from all separation. It's like asking the difference between a duck. "Before" time is meaningless garbage.

[questionposter]

It's true by definition. Time is just a separation of states. You can't be separated from all separation. It's like asking the difference between a duck. "Before" time is meaningless garbage.

 

If I ask for the amount of time before the universe started existing, it would be meaningless, but a lack of everything by definition means nothing, and before the universe, not even time existed, which seems pretty nothing to me. Whether the universe had an actual beginning is something we can't answer right now.

If you can't think of it that way, think of it like "i", or the square root of negative one. It's not a real value, but if you multiply "i" by itself, you still get negative one. Even though there wasn't real values to correlate to the physical existence of nothing, mathematically and logically before the universe there was literally no thing.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[ydoaPs]

If I ask for the amount of time before the universe started existing, it would be meaningless, but a lack of everything by definition means nothing, and before the universe, not even time existed, which seems pretty nothing to me.

 

It is meaningless. There's no such thing as "before" time, just as there's no "north" of the North Pole.

 

 

 

Whether the universe had an actual beginning is something we can't answer right now.

 

Having a beginning and being eternal are not mutually exclusive.

[questionposter]

It is meaningless. There's no such thing as "before" time, just as there's no "north" of the North Pole.

Read my posts more carefully and you will see I said that exact same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Having a beginning and being eternal are not mutually exclusive.

 

True, but one has to consider the evidence yet the fact we can't actually prove it one way or another.

[A Tripolation]

and before the universe, not even time existed, which seems pretty nothing to me.

 

Stop saying "before the universe." It's wrong if we accept our current models as fact.

 

 

If you can't think of it that way, think of it like "i", or the square root of negative one. It's not a real value,

 

You haven't studied much higher-level math yet, have you? Not trying to be offensive, just trying to gauge your current level of interpretation.

[questionposter]

Stop saying "before the universe." It's wrong if we accept our current models as fact.

I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner.

 

 

 

 

You haven't studied much higher-level math yet, have you? Not trying to be offensive, just trying to gauge your current level of interpretation.

I don't see where you get this from. Do you think if your swinging on a swing and I graph it that you will actually touch the ground? No, yet it still says you touch the ground at "i" times somethings. With "before the universe", it works like that. I'm not saying that all values before the universe existed were "i" in any way, I'm saying there were not real (the normal term, not the mathematical term that is meant to distinguish from imaginary or complex values) values that could account for anything, but it can still be logically concluded that if we go back before the universe was created, there could only have been nothing, in the same way that I can say we can logically conclude a person on a swing hits the ground at "i" something. I understand your point or how you think about it about how since time didn't existed before the universe there was no previous time to count back to in order to find nothingness.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[wucko]

here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66200-a-space-time-with-discrete-space-and-infinite-time-in-both-directions/ is what had my nothing-exists-or-not reasoning led me in terms of physycs.

 

if its possible instead of quarreling, try to think.

 

I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see where you get this from. Do you think if your swinging on a swing and I graph it that you will actually touch the ground? No, yet it still says you touch the ground at "i" times somethings. With "before the universe", it works like that. I'm not saying that all values before the universe existed were "i" in any way, I'm saying there were not real (the normal term, not the mathematical term that is meant to distinguish from imaginary or complex values) values that could account for anything, but it can still be logically concluded that if we go back before the universe was created, there could only have been nothing, in the same way that I can say we can logically conclude a person on a swing hits the ground at "i" something. I understand your point or how you think about it about how since time didn't existed before the universe there was no previous time to count back to in order to find nothingness.

 

@ I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner. (except for a couple of miliseconds after the presumed t=0. Universe of epochs is as valid as BigBang theory. ) A nice way-out would be to assume endless time in both past and future, but in epochs. It is not even completely wrong to assume existance of regions of universe, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is reversed. Infact one of the most reasonable definitions of life is the reversal of the 2nd law. Asking for t=0 is perhapse really much like asking for a flat planet earth.

[questionposter]

here: http://www.sciencefo...oth-directions/ is what had my nothing-exists-or-not reasoning led me in terms of physycs.

 

if its possible instead of quarreling, try to think.

 

 

 

@ I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner. (except for a couple of miliseconds after the presumed t=0. Universe of epochs is as valid as BigBang theory. ) A nice way-out would be to assume endless time in both past and future, but in epochs. It is not even completely wrong to assume existance of regions of universe, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is reversed. Infact one of the most reasonable definitions of life is the reversal of the 2nd law. Asking for t=0 is perhapse really much like asking for a flat planet earth.

 

Regardless, it is still logical that before everything, there was nothing.

[anotherfilthyape]

one must stop and say "nothing exists" and then go further in answering "Can nothing exist"

 

why should this be the procedure? specially since its full of non sequiturs... 1.one cannot say "nothing exists" if we know that something exists (cogito ergo sum) 2.if one says "nothing exists" asking if it can exist is redundant and meaningless...

[questionposter]

why should this be the procedure? specially since its full of non sequiturs... 1.one cannot say "nothing exists" if we know that something exists (cogito ergo sum) 2.if one says "nothing exists" asking if it can exist is redundant and meaningless...

 

"nothing" doesn't exist right now.

[anotherfilthyape]

"nothing" doesn't exist right now.

that's what I meant

[wucko]

It's true by definition. Time is just a separation of states. You can't be separated from all separation. It's like asking the difference between a duck. "Before" time is meaningless garbage.

 

But could it be meaningless precisely because before time does not exist, in a sense, that time infact has no beginning, no t=0?

 

why should this be the procedure? specially since its full of non sequiturs... 1.one cannot say "nothing exists" if we know that something exists (cogito ergo sum) 2.if one says "nothing exists" asking if it can exist is redundant and meaningless...

 

yes, thats why i say it is a flase question (i might be horribly wrong) and go on and develop a possible answer.

[Moontanman]

Regardless, it is still logical that before everything, there was nothing.

 

 

That's not logical at all, all we know about is what we can observe, we have no idea of anything other than what we can observe. There are models that postulate that what we see as the universe is really only a small part of something else but these are models and cannot be tested at this time. But to say with any authority that nothing existed before the universe is as nonsensical as saying something exists outside the universe...

[questionposter]

That's not logical at all, all we know about is what we can observe, we have no idea of anything other than what we can observe. There are models that postulate that what we see as the universe is really only a small part of something else but these are models and cannot be tested at this time. But to say with any authority that nothing existed before the universe is as nonsensical as saying something exists outside the universe...

 

I already said I understand the point of view that there couldn't have been a nothingness to be around before the universe, but mathematically I can still trace it back to that, just like how if I graph falling off of a building with a quadratic equation, I will somehow find locations of accelerating going backwards in time. Logic doesn't have to describe existence. So it is logical, but it may not have actually worked that way because there was no one around to observe if it did or not.

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter

[wucko]

Person A: "I am saying that to 'not have everything' you only need to lose one thing."

 

Person B: "And I am saying to be left with nothing, you must loose everything."

 

Person C: "So the opposite of everything is something or anything or all, but not nothing, while the opposite of nothing is everything, but not something or anything or all."

 

Whos (more) right?

 

language:

 

=! -> is not opposite to

!= -> is opposite to

| -> or

&& -> and

 

0 = something

1 = anything

a = all

E = everything

? = nothing

 

E != (0 | 1 | a) && E =! ?;

 

? != E && ? =! (0 | 1 | a);

 

--> E =! ? && ? != E

 

It appears that the relationships are not commutative, and truly: if you wish to have ? you must completely erase E (not set it to zero). Then ? is nothing, while at the same time to not have E you can completely erase 0 or 1 or a, while you can not erase nothing.

 

@myself: "I am saying that to 'not have everything' you only need to lose one thing." Imagine loosing nothing.

Edited May 15, 2012 by wucko

[PeterJ]

 

Having a beginning and being eternal are not mutually exclusive.

They are in the opinion of most philosophers, and I would say in the light of common sense. Nor can something that was once finite become infinite.

 

As to the 'existence of Nothing', my view would be that 'Nothing' is not a location in the possibility space of the universe. So, we can say that the possibility of Nothing does not exist, which gets around the language problem.