There is no such thing as nothing.

[__Ben__]

Go!

[StringJunky]

Nothing is an accounting word we use to describe the absence of something, so as an idea it does exist in the mind of a person thinking about it. It's a concept not a thing so it can't exist independently of itself.

[__Ben__]

The concept of nothing exists I agree. But isn't a concept something?

[benevolenthellion]

by calling something nothing you are there fore giving it substance thus making it something, so calling the absolute absence on any particle and wave noting makes it a thing. What's more, given the quantum fluxing nature of the universe, merely trying to observe nothing changes the outcome and then can no longer be called nothing.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I've said this is another thread somewhere, nothing is something that has no length. It is, by definition, unobservable, and therefor, you can't make any conclusions about its existence. Lawrence Krauss proposed the idea of something from nothing, which I think is worth attention. It's not generally contested that expansion exists, and yet, what is it? Lawrence, I believe, says that it is the force of nothing. I agree with him on that assertion, especially with what I have learned about quantum physics. If two particles can technically be the same particle regardless of their location in space, then why can't two nothings be the same nothing regardless of its location in space. If one nothing is affected, then all nothing is affected. This could be why the universe is expanding.

[Nouveau]

"There is no such thing as nothing", this could certainly be correct, very much dependent on which definition of "nothing" you are actually using. I would suggest the most productive definition to prove this statement is correct would be:- "nothing is the absence of anything". Certainly this definition would prove accurate in this instance, as the absence of any properties whatsoever would make it impossible to detect, thus would have no possible interaction with anything else we are or could become aware of, there for to our frame of reference it must remain completely non-existent.

[Electrum]

This statement was first established by Leibniz and is perhaps one of the most ingenious ideas of all time allowing man to answer some of the most difficult questions. Something cannot come from nothing. Since we know there is something, nothing could never have existed and never can exist since something cannot become nothing.

 

The big bang singularity was a dimensionless point, and did not exist in physical reality but it was something. Black hole singularities are also dimensionless points but they have mass hence are something. These two phenomena are in fact evidence of the dimensionless domain of the mind.

 

Once ontological existence of zero is defined as something, we can see that the big bang did not arise from nothing, but from ontological zero, the same domain that is defined by any given mathematical point.

 

The physical domain is defined by dimensions measurable by numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. The mental domain is defined by zero and infinity. The universe is composed of one substance, and that is ontological complete mathematics which manifests in these two domains. Ontological complete mathematics solves cartesian duality and refutes scientific materialism since science denies the ontological existence of zero.

 

http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/index.htm

Edited July 23, 2013 by Electrum