An Exercise in nothing semantics.

[Mentat]

An Exercise in "nothing" semantics.

I apologize for not being able to include the responses, in fact my computer is moving so slowly that I'm not going to be able to copy the exact original post.

The point was this: If you take a sentence, where the word "nothing" is used, and replace "nothing" with "not anything", the result gives the same meaning as the original, but it doesn't allow for foolish contemplation of what "nothing" is.

An example would be... "The universe is expanding into nothing" = "The universe is not expanding into anything". The same meaning, and yet it eliminates the need for poinless debates about the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
"The universe is expanding into nothing" = "The universe is not expanding into anything". The same meaning, and yet it eliminates the need for poinless debates about the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into. [/B]

It would be nice to get into this discussion "tableu blanc" but, I remember some of it and I remember you stating that the universe is expanding into the universe.

Are you stating that the universe is "not anything" with your example? Or is it a purely hypothetical and didactic statement that has "much adeu about nothing"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
It would be nice to get into this discussion "tableu blanc" but, I remember some of it and I remember you stating that the universe is expanding into the universe.

Are you stating that the universe is "not anything" with your example? Or is it a purely hypothetical and didactic statement that has "much adeu about nothing"?

Actually, it was carl (you?), who said that the view is usually that the universe is expanding into the universe. I have never said that. I said that the expansion of the universe is merely a "broadening of it's horizons", and that discussion of what it was "expanding into" was moot.

Side Note: In other threads, I also made mention of the point that "universe" means "everything", and thus it makes no sense to say that universe is expanding "into something", because there would be nothing (or "there wouldn't be anything") outside of it.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, it was carl (you?), who said that the view is usually that the universe is expanding into the universe. I have never said that. I said that the expansion of the universe is merely a "broadening of it's horizons", and that discussion of what it was "expanding into" was moot.

Side Note: In other threads, I also made mention of the point that "universe" means "everything", and thus it makes no sense to say that universe is expanding "into something", because there would be nothing (or "there wouldn't be anything") outside of it.

Hi Mentat, OK, yes its me.

How do you define "broaden". How can we put an horizon on an infinite universe? Perhaps you don't see the universe as infinite?

 

[CJames]

When we talk about the universe expanding, we simply mean that the distances between points in space time are increasing. There is no requirement for it to be expanding into a larger space, since all space exists within the universe. Therefore, "the universe isn't expanding into anything" is good word usage. Distances are simply increasing between objects. That's what it means.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by CJames
When we talk about the universe expanding, we simply mean that the distances between points in space time are increasing. There is no requirement for it to be expanding into a larger space, since all space exists within the universe. Therefore, "the universe isn't expanding into anything" is good word usage. Distances are simply increasing between objects. That's what it means.

So the space is already there, meaning the Universe is expanding into empty space?

 

[Ishop]

muhahaha IM BACK *comes riding in looking all majestic and stuff*

hehe

CJames, your definition of expansion is not expansion, it is just movement in a defined area. Unless youmean to say tat all matter, energy, ect. is infinite. In which case this is against the BB theory since there, at some point, was a starting point for the expansion and a defined condensed area in which it started. Perhaps I misread what you are explaining.

Iacchus32, use Mentats way and say that the Universe is expanding into not a thing.

Mentat said:

An example would be... "The universe is expanding into nothing" = "The universe is not expanding into anything". The same meaning, and yet it eliminates the need for poinless debates about the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into.

I would say "The Universe is expading into not a thing". Your example makes it sound like the universe is not expanding. ut we all know what you meant.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Hi Mentat, OK, yes its me.

How do you define "broaden". How can we put an horizon on an infinite universe? Perhaps you don't see the universe as infinite?

Hey carl, good to see you, again . Cool new name.

When I say "broaden", I mean basically what CJames said (in his post). That all parts of it are getting farther apart. But when I say "broadening it's horizons", I make specific reference to the edge of the universe (as I do not believe that the universe is infinite).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ishop
muhahaha IM BACK *comes riding in looking all majestic and stuff*

hehe

CJames, your definition of expansion is not expansion, it is just movement in a defined area. Unless youmean to say tat all matter, energy, ect. is infinite. In which case this is against the BB theory since there, at some point, was a starting point for the expansion and a defined condensed area in which it started. Perhaps I misread what you are explaining.

Iacchus32, use Mentats way and say that the Universe is expanding into not a thing.

Mentat said:


I would say "The Universe is expading into not a thing". Your example makes it sound like the universe is not expanding. ut we all know what you meant.

Actually, Ishop, I worded it as I did purposefully. You see, a big problem with the question, "what is the universe expanding into", is that it implies that the universe is - in fact - expanding into something. I am saying that it is expanding into nothing, or (better phrased...) it is not expanding into anything.

 

[CJames]

Iacchus32,

So the space is already there, meaning the Universe is expanding into empty space?

No, once again it is not expanding into anything.

Ishop,

CJames, your definition of expansion is not expansion, it is just movement in a defined area. Unless youmean to say tat all matter, energy, ect. is infinite. In which case this is against the BB theory since there, at some point, was a starting point for the expansion and a defined condensed area in which it started. Perhaps I misread what you are explaining.

It is not expansion in the way we commonly interpret it, but it is what is meant by the expansion of the universe. Any two points in spacetime are moving away from each other. That is the expansion of the universe. A universe of infinite size does not defy the big bang theory, nor is it required for this sort of expansion to work. Is there a topic on this yet in astronomy? If so, you should look it up, as this is the philosophy section.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So the space is already there, meaning the Universe is expanding into empty space?

No, Iacchus32, if you re-read my post, you'll see that the theory is that the universe in not expanding into anything.

 

[chosenone]

So if the universe is expanding into nothing,then the longer it keeps happening the soon will cease to exist when we to become nothing!just a little joke!if we exist in space ,the matter that exists in space takes space to occuppyit.how could a universe full of empty space expanding outward to take space itself to do it.the universe occuppies space to,so we must be expanding in something that has space too,because you can't have space on the inside and not on the outside!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by chosenone
So if the universe is expanding into nothing,then the longer it keeps happening the soon will cease to exist when we to become nothing!just a little joke!if we exist in space ,the matter that exists in space takes space to occuppyit.how could a universe full of empty space expanding outward to take space itself to do it.the universe occuppies space to,so we must be expanding in something that has space too,because you can't have space on the inside and not on the outside!

Yes, you can, and that's the point. There is nothing outside of everything (read "there isn't anything outside of 'everything'"), and so it is - in fact - impossible for the universe to be expanding into more of anything.

 

[arivero]

Originally posted by Mentat
The point was this: If you take a sentence, where the word "nothing" is used, and replace "nothing" with "not anything", the result gives the same meaning as the original, but it doesn't allow for foolish contemplation of what "nothing" is.

Indeed the nominalization of the negative action is a well known falacy. It is evident for infinite sets, where while it can be proved easily that some concrete element is not in the (finite or infinite) set A, it is a whole big logical jump to believe in the existence of "the set whose elements are not in the set A". It amounts to believe in the closed existence of "the set of everything", so you can substract A from the Total.

A relationship between linguistics and politics is stablished by some thinkers by noticing that while "no thing" is an action, dynamical, "nothing" is a noun, static. Thus nominalization allows for burocratical tasks, classification, etc. and then also allows for freezing and stagnancy of a society. In this point of view the fallacy comes from believing in the closed existence of "the reality" as, say, a set of all the existing things. The fallacy, by the way, applies to more specific examples. The most popular in politics could be to identify "we want no social order!" with "we want social disorders". But one can do it with almost every action.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by arivero
Indeed the nominalization of the negative action is a well known falacy. It is evident for infinite sets, where while it can be proved easily that some concrete element is not in the (finite or infinite) set A, it is a whole big logical jump to believe in the existence of "the set whose elements are not in the set A". It amounts to believe in the closed existence of "the set of everything", so you can substract A from the Total.

A relationship between linguistics and politics is stablished by some thinkers by noticing that while "no thing" is an action, dynamical, "nothing" is a noun, static. Thus nominalization allows for burocratical tasks, classification, etc. and then also allows for freezing and stagnancy of a society. In this point of view the fallacy comes from believing in the closed existence of "the reality" as, say, a set of all the existing things. The fallacy, by the way, applies to more specific examples. The most popular in politics could be to identify "we want no social order!" with "we want social disorders". But one can do it with almost every action.

Good comparison .

 

[Eh]

Ishop,

This subject came up on the old board. Maybe a URL might help clear things up. [Removed Broken Link]

 

[Ishop]

arguements on the Big Bang theory aside, if what you describe is the "space" between objects changing is the expanding universe, then you are still describing space as "not a thing" (nothing). This bolds well for the argument that there is a "nothing". An area defined by the lack of something. It is a negative property and therefore can exsist. Just as dark exsist. Even thouh dark is only defined by lack of light, nothing is defined as lack of exsistence. No one argues that there is no dark. Now the only problem is that people see the word "nothing" as a noun because we treat it as so in our language. But we use the word "dark" as an adjective to describe a noun. This confuses people into thinking that "nothing cannot be a something therefore there cannot be a nothing because it cannot be something". Obviously this is just a play on words and ignores the concept and definition of nothing. The truth is "nothing" is a adjective that is spoken in the nouns place. The noun is area. So instead of saying there is not a thing in this area. You say there is nothing here. Nothing meaning: not a thing in this area. So, even your explanation of expansion requires there to be a nothing. This then makes the argument of "is the universe expanding or simply moving away from each other" mute. Both arguements require a "not a thing area" to exsist.

I also know that many of you are just itching to reply with "area requires measurements, you cannot measure "not a thing"". Here is your answer to that. Take dark. We say a room is dark. Why does the dark stop? Did we measure dark? No, we simply measured where the light ended. If there is 2 meters in which light does not exsist, we say the dark is 2 meters long. The dark is not measured, the lght is in a negative way in order to define the dark. The same concept applies with nothing.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Ishop
arguements on the Big Bang theory aside, if what you describe is the "space" between objects changing is the expanding universe, then you are still describing space as "not a thing" (nothing). This bolds well for the argument that there is a "nothing".

Actually, space is a field, which is just as physical as matter. But you can really call it anything you want.

An area defined by the lack of something. It is a negative property and therefore can exsist. Just as dark exsist. Even thouh dark is only defined by lack of light, nothing is defined as lack of exsistence.

You can call space chocolate for all it matters, the area is still a field whether or not matter is present. The question is, why call matter a thing, and a field not anything? In terms of geometry, they are quite similar.

...The noun is area. So instead of saying there is not a thing in this area. You say there is nothing here. Nothing meaning: not a thing in this area.

And that again illustrates my question. Why call an an empty area of the gravitational field nothing, while calling matter something? What makes matter so special that it should be called a thing, while fields should not?

So, even your explanation of expansion requires there to be a nothing. This then makes the argument of "is the universe expanding or simply moving away from each other" mute. Both arguements require a "not a thing area" to exsist.

If you want to refer to a vacuum (absence of matter) as nothing, fine. But even that won't work, because QM forbids the existence such vacuums. At every point in the universe, there seems to be at least a small amount of energy present. What then?

 

[CJames]

Ishop, if you are trying to say that the volume of empty space in the universe is rising, it is. So if you call empty space nothing, there you go. But the nothingness we refer to here is absolute nothing. The universe isn't expanding into anything, because there is no thing for the universe to expand into. It is simply expanding.

 

[Ishop]

CJames, when I say nothing I mean nothing. Not a thing. Absolute nothing in your words. I agree with your last two sentences. I hate the word "space". I mean "space" to be an area. If I say a space with no thing, that is an area in which not a thing exsist. I do not mean the "space a final frontier". Or outside of Earths Atmosphere. I think we agree in our outlooks, you might have taken something wrong that I said.

Eh, you said that expansion is exsisting things seperating not really expanding. Now you say that there are fields (gravitational) that are in between these objects. I agree that a gravitational field is something, but now your idea of expansion is collapsing (excuse the pun). If you have item "A" and item "B" seperating, then you are saying there is a gravitaional field in between them. I'll accept that. But that is not expansion, that is growth. What you are saying is at one point A and B have a field that is 1 meter long between them, a few hours later they have a field that is 2 meters between them. You see this is growth of exsistence, not expansion and not expansion according to the Big Bang Theory. What you describe is much like dirt particles in a glass of water. particle A and B are seperating but have water (field) in between them and that the water is growing. Although it may look like expansion, this is actually growth. The water would be growing not expanding. What expansion would be is dumping the water on the floor. The water would then expand along with the dirt particles. That is expansion. I'll meet you half way though. I see growing gravitaional fields, so I will say that the water is growing and the water is spilled. I think this is an accurate analogy of our universe. However in order to say that anything is expanding there must be a way to measure that. If it is measurable then it is not infinite. A finite universe must yield to the idea that there is not a thing somewhere.

QM does not forbid the concept of a vacum. There is a vacuum between Atoms and electrons.

 

[CJames]

Ishop, the term expansion is used quite loosely in cosmology. We tend to think of expansion in terms of things getting bigger. So call it growth if you so desire, it doesn't change what it is.

The thing you are not understanding is what I mean by absolute nothing. Absolute nothing means not only no matter, but no space and no time. This is actually why Mentat started this topic, to explain how confusing the word "nothing" is. Space isn't expanding into anything, that is the way to put it.

Imagine the surface of a balloon. Imagine that the universe exists on the surface of this balloon. As you blow into this balloon, every point on the surface of the balloon recedes from every other point on the balloon. Remember, the only thing that exists is the SURFACE of the balloon. So you can see there is no edge to this expansion, and there is no empty space into which the balloon's surface is expanding.

Now in the real world, the universe is 3-dimensional, unlike the surface of a balloon. But the concept is the same.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Ishop
Eh, you said that expansion is exsisting things seperating not really expanding.

No I didn't. Space is just another name for the gravitational field, and asymptotically flat expands. Local regions of curved space (matter) do not expand. So you could say the flat space in between galaxies that expands, but not the curved space that makes up the stars and galaxies.

Now you say that there are fields (gravitational) that are in between these objects. I agree that a gravitational field is something, but now your idea of expansion is collapsing (excuse the pun). If you have item "A" and item "B" seperating, then you are saying there is a gravitaional field in between them. I'll accept that. But that is not expansion, that is growth.

Again, it's the space between A and B expanding. A and B don't need to move at all.

What you are saying is at one point A and B have a field that is 1 meter long between them, a few hours later they have a field that is 2 meters between them. You see this is growth of exsistence, not expansion and not expansion according to the Big Bang Theory.

Nope, it's called expansion, and I'd sure like to hear you version of the big bang theory. You once claimed the theory is not compatible with a finite universe, so I'm guessing we're not on the same page here.

What you describe is much like dirt particles in a glass of water. particle A and B are seperating but have water (field) in between them and that the water is growing. Although it may look like expansion, this is actually growth. The water would be growing not expanding. What expansion would be is dumping the water on the floor. The water would then expand along with the dirt particles. That is expansion. I'll meet you half way though. I see growing gravitaional fields, so I will say that the water is growing and the water is spilled.

Semantics. You can say the field is growing or expanding - it means the same thing.

...A finite universe must yield to the idea that there is not a thing somewhere.

Since space is a field and something, this claim does not follow.

QM does not forbid the concept of a vacum. There is a vacuum between Atoms and electrons.

The quantum vacuum is the ground state - it is not a perfect vacuum. There is a finite amount of energy everywhere - even in between atoms.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Hey carl, good to see you, again . Cool new name.

When I say "broaden", I mean basically what CJames said (in his post). That all parts of it are getting farther apart. But when I say "broadening it's horizons", I make specific reference to the edge of the universe (as I do not believe that the universe is infinite).

Brother Mentat!

Edge of the universe?


"Edge" implies a defining difference between one state and another state.

What do you believe is on the other side of the "edge" of the universe?

Is it the state of "not anything"?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CJames, dood!

You say the parts of the universe are getting farther apart, basically running away from each other. Like with boiling water, the H2O molecular structures are getting further apart, creating more distance between each other.

They are in a pot so this "getting further apart" tends to result in "steam" and the H2O molecules escape the confines of the pot via becoming a gas and expanding into the atmosphere.

This is what we observe in nature and within the confines of the physical universe.

Why would it be any different for the collection of matter that is this universe... in that, as you say... it does not expand, nor "broaden" but has somehow defied that end result of "creating more distance" which is expansion yet creates more distance between its (huge) "pariticles"?

Is it that matter on a small scale does not act with the same logic as matter on a vast scale?

EDIT. Oops, I just read eh's explanation... so I have to re-word this...

Is it that space does not act with the same logic on a small scale as it does on a large scale? (in that: space expands when it is out of reach of gravitational fields and cannot expand (or create distance) when its warped up in a g field?!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Brother Mentat!

Edge of the universe?


"Edge" implies a defining difference between one state and another state.

What do you believe is on the other side of the "edge" of the universe?

Is it the state of "not anything"?!

I said "edge". I didn't say there was anything on the other side of it. Yes, the "edge of the universe" is the defining difference between existence and the lack-thereof. Fortunately, nothing can reach the "edge", even if such a thing actually exists.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, the "edge of the universe" is the defining difference between existence and the lack-thereof. Fortunately, nothing can reach the "edge", even if such a thing actually exists.

So you're using the term 'edge" hypothetically?

Is it because we are conditioned by our experience, here, somewhere in the midst of all the matter of the universe, where there are edges and boundaries... abrupt changes in density etc... that we tend to rely on words like "edge" to describe the "outer reachs" of the universe?

Or is it because that is exactly what it is... a boundary... an abrupt change in density... from space and matter (energy) to... "not anything".

And if that boundary between anything and not anything were there... it would be correct to say that the state of "not anything" allows for the expansion (or broadening) of "anything" by its very potential to accommodate it... or be replaced by it.

I don't think its fortunate that we can't quite study the "edge" of the universe... if there is one.

I do think its fortunate that the challenge is there... otherwise we'd never think to tackle it!

 

[Ishop]

QuantumCarl said:

The thing you are not understanding is what I mean by absolute nothing. Absolute nothing means not only no matter, but no space and no time. This is actually why Mentat started this topic, to explain how confusing the word "nothing" is. Space isn't expanding into anything, that is the way to put it

I fully understand this and agree with it. As said in my past posts.
I said:

CJames, when I say nothing I mean nothing. Not a thing. Absolute nothing in your words.

I also said:

I agree that a gravitational field is something

So where did you get that I don't agree with you there?

You also use the surface of a baloon as an exaple of the universe, but then say, now imagine that happening in a 3D world. You can't. Because that cannot happen in a 3D world. Your balloon shows a finite universe. It would be possible to account for the entire baloon surface, meaning it is measurable and finite. Then you say, now apply that to an infinite 3D univiverse? Please use a better example. Give me an example of an infinite 3D object. Since Atoms are not infinite and have a measurable defined space you cannot. Your example does not work. I can say imagine a "blah blah" expanding. Now apply that to a 3d infinite universe. Doesn't work.

Eh Said:

Space is just another name for the gravitational field

Which is why I did not use the word space and I hate the word. When I say gravitaional field I mean gravitational field. Gravitaional fields are finite just a light is finite. This coincides with a finite universe meaning that there is somewhere outside the universe that has no universe "not a thing" including gravitaional fields and curves.

You also said:

Semantics. You can say the field is growing or expanding - it means the same thing.

No it doesn't. People do not expand, they grow. A baby does not expand into an adult, they grow. There is a difference. You might as well say"semantics, lettuce, turtles, same thing. Different definitions means different things.

Mentat said:

I said "edge". I didn't say there was anything on the other side of it. Yes, the "edge of the universe" is the defining difference between existence and the lack-thereof. Fortunately, nothing can reach the "edge", even if such a thing actually exists.

Finite universe.



I'm all about going to the Resturaunt and the Edge of the Universe with Slartibartfast and having a Snargleblaster or two.

 

[CJames]

Ishop,

You also use the surface of a baloon as an exaple of the universe, but then say, now imagine that happening in a 3D world. You can't. Because that cannot happen in a 3D world.

I know it's confusing Ishop. But that is the way it works. That is how general relativity works. It describes the 4-dimensional world (3 spatial dimensions + the dimension of time) as though it were 2 dimensional. It can be bent and warped like the surface of a trampoline. This is how gravity works. It sounds crazy, but there is no denying how it matches reality exactly. Experiment after experiment proves it's accuracey. GPS sattelites don't work without compensating for general relativity.

If the universe is finite, which it doesn't appear to be however it still could be, then continuing in one direction, a straight line, will eventually carry you back to the same spot. It's similar to the 2 dimensional surface of the earth. Keep walking in one direction and you will end up back where you started. In a finite universe, that is how it works, only in 3 dimensions. It's impossible to visualize, but it's how it works.

An infinite universe certainly obeys the same truth. A universe of infinite size that is expanding, you can see there is no center to this expansion, that all points are receeding from all other points, and that there is no empty space into which this universe is expanding.

Again, you can call it growth if you wish. But the term used is expansion.

The reason I am saying all this is because I don't think you are clear on how to visualize this. You have agreed that the universe isn't expanding into anything, but I still have the impression you think there is an edge to this expansion. There isn't. If you understand this then okay, I am sorry.

 

[CJames]

Carl,

Why would it be any different for the collection of matter that is this universe... in that, as you say... it does not expand, nor "broaden" but has somehow defied that end result of "creating more distance" which is expansion yet creates more distance between its (huge) "pariticles"?

I didn't realize I was this incoherent. I appologize. I am not implying that more space isn't created...

It all depends on what type of universe we are talking about. IF the universe is finite, meaning there is a limit to how big it is, then as I said it is like the surface of a balloon expanding. So in that case, yes, the finite size of the universe is actually getting larger.

In the case of an infinite universe, expansion doesn't mean getting larger than infinity. But it does mean adding more space to an infinite number. This is a confusing concept, but it works. An infinite number isn't the largest number possible. You can do whatever you want with infinity, add it, subtract it, divide it, and you will still get an answer that is infinite.

It must have been that part where I said, "We tend to think of expansion in terms of things getting bigger." That is confusing. Sorry. Disregard it. I was thinking of an infinite universe when I wrote that.

 

[kyleb]

i find it more comfortable to say that the fluctuating distribution matter within the universe creates the appearance of expansion. it is much like how plant/animal material will shrink or expand with regard to moisture.

 

[Ishop]

CJames Said:

If the universe is finite, which it doesn't appear to be however it still could be, then continuing in one direction, a straight line, will eventually carry you back to the same spot. It's similar to the 2 dimensional surface of the earth. Keep walking in one direction and you will end up back where you started. In a finite universe, that is how it works, only in 3 dimensions. It's impossible to visualize, but it's how it works.

Im sure yu realize that the Earth is a sphere(a 3Dimensional object), not 2D. Also, what you describe above is not infinite. The Earth is not infinite. There is a defined amount of matter. The universe (things that exsist, ie. gravitaional fields, matter, energy, ect.) are limited to amount. This is the only possiblity in a 2D representation or a 3D or 4D. However you want to represent it. If you want to say that the universe is like the Earth (which it is not and I think you didnt mean exactly that) then yu must realize that there is space outside of the earth. If it is like a circle, there is space outside the circle. If it is represented by ANYTHING, there is something outside of it.

Use M&M's as an example. Say you put some M&M's on a coffee table. These M&M's represent EVERYTHING (including fields, energy, mass, ect.) anything that exsist. There is nothing besides the M&M's. No matter what shape you put them in 3D or 2D, ther is still an area in which there are no M&M's. This would be "nothing", "not a thing". The only way that there is no "nothing" is if those M&M's go on for infinity. There is no evidence that supports that matter, energy, fields, ect, are infinite. In fact there actually never could be since a property of infinity is that it cannot be measured. However the Big Ban theory deals with a finite amount of materials. Finite materials means exsistence of nothing.

You also said:

You have agreed that the universe isn't expanding into anything, but I still have the impression you think there is an edge to this expansion

I never said that the universe isn't expanding into anything. I said that it is expanding into "not a thing".

In order for there to be expansion it must be measured. An expansion is a measured speration of particles. I don't see how anyone can argue against that definition. Anything measured is not infinite. If it is not infinite then there is a place where there is no exsisting thing "nothing". You are saying matter, energy, fields, ect. are infinite. While you cannot destroy exsistence, only change its form, you cannot create it either. This implies a finite universe again. You are basicly saying that we get infinite atoms to make infinite things. If this were the case then everything would be solid for infinity.

Eh said:

You once claimed the theory (BB) is not compatible with a finite universe, so I'm guessing we're not on the same page here.

I may have mistyped. As you see above I meant that the BB theory is not compatable with an infinite universe. Same page. Also why the Big Bang theory proves there is an are with "not a thing" in it (nothing).

Eh you also said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said this:
QM does not forbid the concept of a vacum. There is a vacuum between Atoms and electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said:

The quantum vacuum is the ground state - it is not a perfect vacuum. There is a finite amount of energy everywhere - even in between atoms.

I won't argue down to the atom, but I do like that you used the terms "finite amount of energy everywhere". Making me think again that you see the exsisting universe as finite. Which proves a "nothing".

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by CJames
Carl,
I didn't realize I was this incoherent. I appologize. I am not implying that more space isn't created...

It all depends on what type of universe we are talking about. IF the universe is finite, meaning there is a limit to how big it is, then as I said it is like the surface of a balloon expanding. So in that case, yes, the finite size of the universe is actually getting larger.

In the case of an infinite universe, expansion doesn't mean getting larger than infinity. But it does mean adding more space to an infinite number. This is a confusing concept, but it works. An infinite number isn't the largest number possible. You can do whatever you want with infinity, add it, subtract it, divide it, and you will still get an answer that is infinite.

It must have been that part where I said, "We tend to think of expansion in terms of things getting bigger." That is confusing. Sorry. Disregard it. I was thinking of an infinite universe when I wrote that.

Very cool CJames... thank you.

I see the universe as infinite. I see the possibility of what we call the big bang as only one of an infinite number of big bangs... in whatever variety or manner of "banging".

This coincides with the idea of an infinite universe.

The reason we don't see the other big bangs or results thereof is because of separation by "not anything" or void.

This does not mean the "void" has a property... it has a lack of a property... as mentat might agree... and thus it cannot transmit or carry light.

It also does not mean the "void" has a depth or substance of any kind... just that it acts as a kind of membrane or psuedomembrane between regions that hold the results of energy ie: matter, space etc.

Thanks again for your explanation of the finite and infinite views of the universe. It gets confusing but I'm experienced with confusion!

In the case of an infinite universe i can see that any number or type of movement would not be termed expansion... only change

We have definitely been conditioned by our experience as "middle men" in the scheme of the universe. We witness expansion and contraction only because we have a finite physical body and relate what we have to what we see. I think this conditioning has helped us survive as long as we have! However, it may become necessary, at some later date, to see things differently in order to survive on a universal level of consciousness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
So you're using the term 'edge" hypothetically?

Is it because we are conditioned by our experience, here, somewhere in the midst of all the matter of the universe, where there are edges and boundaries... abrupt changes in density etc... that we tend to rely on words like "edge" to describe the "outer reachs" of the universe?

Or is it because that is exactly what it is... a boundary... an abrupt change in density... from space and matter (energy) to... "not anything".

And if that boundary between anything and not anything were there... it would be correct to say that the state of "not anything" allows for the expansion (or broadening) of "anything" by its very potential to accommodate it... or be replaced by it.

I don't think its fortunate that we can't quite study the "edge" of the universe... if there is one.

I do think its fortunate that the challenge is there... otherwise we'd never think to tackle it!

Don't speak of "not anything", as though it were a state. It is not. There is not the state of there being nothing there. There would be no "there", if there were "nothing there". The edge of the universe (if it exists) would be the point where existence stops; however, even if you could catch up to this point, you'd never "find" it because the fact that you are there, means that there is something, and that is thus not the edge of the universe anymore.

 

[Ishop]

I agree with mentat about "not anything" being a on state.

Carl, while I disagree with how you come to your conclusion, it appears we both agree that there is absolute void by your last post...and that's what this thread was about so I won't debate the other things here...cool. Seems like we've agreed on something. Wierd. lol

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Ishop

"...Which is why I did not use the word space and I hate the word. When I say gravitaional field I mean gravitational field. Gravitaional fields are finite just a light is finite."

You can space whatever you want, but there is nothing that says the gravitational field must be finite. The geometry of the field (space) can be either infinite or finite, we just don't know which.

This coincides with a finite universe meaning that there is somewhere outside the universe that has no universe "not a thing" including gravitaional fields and curves."

No it doesn't, since by definition you cannot have a place without space. There logically can be no "outside" of space, and as I said space IS the gravitational field.

Now you might think that such a finite space would only be a small region in an infinite void, but this is only possible if the void has 4 spatial dimensions. You simply cannot embeded a hyperbolic object with only 3 dimensions.

But at any rate, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a void exists, and a finite universe does not lend credibility to the idea.

People do not expand, they grow. A baby does not expand into an adult, they grow. There is a difference. You might as well say"semantics, lettuce, turtles, same thing. Different definitions means different things.

Err, no. With a region of space that is increasing in volume, you can say it is growing or expanding. It makes absolutely no difference.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Ishop

I may have mistyped. As you see above I meant that the BB theory is not compatable with an infinite universe. Same page. Also why the Big Bang theory proves there is an are with "not a thing" in it (nothing).

That is also incorrect. The big bang is not incompatible with an infinite or finite space. See the link I posted, as it explains this.

And by definition, and area is a region of space. You cannot have a place without space, and in cosmology the expanding universe is the expansion of space itself.

I won't argue down to the atom, but I do like that you used the terms "finite amount of energy everywhere". Making me think again that you see the exsisting universe as finite. Which proves a "nothing".

Does not follow.

 

[CJames]

quantumcarl,

The reason we don't see the other big bangs or results thereof is because of separation by "not anything" or void.

So you have heard this theory? It's sort of a consequence of quantum mechanics. Like a universe springs up due to uncertainty. It's sort of a weird concept. Separate universes. Separate everythings.

Since there is no spacetime connecting us to these alternate universes, they literally do no exist from our frame of reference. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "outta sight, outta mind."

Just as long as you aren't picturing a bunch of separate bubble universes growing next to each other, i'll agree. Because visuallizing that picture, you would imagine two of these universes might touch, which makes no sense. There is no space separating them, they are made of space time.

SO counterintiutive, and yet that's how it works.

Ishop,

Im sure yu realize that the Earth is a sphere(a 3Dimensional object), not 2D.

The SURFACE of Earth is two dimensional. Any position on the planet can be pinpointed by two coordinates.

The universe is 3 dimensional. But it can be curved and warped like a 2 dimensional surface. It's impossible to visualize. But again, that is exactly how it works. I'm not saying I'm right because I am right. I'm saying it because it is the conclusion of a theory that has been tested many many times and has been shown to be correct every time.

However the Big Ban theory deals with a finite amount of materials. Finite materials means exsistence of nothing.

I appologize but this is not the case. The Big Bang does not require that there is a finite amount of material at the beginning of the universe. That is a symplistic understanding. That's what I hate about some of those documentaries on the big bang. They show this picture of a big explosion from the outside as though you could stand outside the universe and watch it expand.

 

[Ishop]

CJames said:

The SURFACE of Earth is two dimensional. Any position on the planet can be pinpointed by two coordinates.

What you are describing in 3Dimensional Design terms is a geosphere. In 3D design a geosphere is a sphere with only one exsisting side (surface). If you go inside the sphere and look out you see nothing. This is not only not 3Dimensional, it is 1Dimensional. If you were to unfold it like a map it would have only one side. You are also in error in thinking that you can find a place on Earth with only two points. True you can, but you are not limited to 2 points. You can find a point on Earth from a third point which is verticle. You are thinking of the world as a map. You are not limited to two points and an objects dimensions are not defined by its limitations, it is defined by its possibilities.

You also said:

The Big Bang does not require that there is a finite amount of material at the beginning of the universe. That is a symplistic understanding. That's what I hate about some of those documentaries on the big bang. They show this picture of a big explosion from the outside as though you could stand outside the universe and watch it expand.

I would LOVE to hear what you think the Big Bang was. Obviously to you the Big Bang had no Big Bang, it does not expand just moves around, and there is an infinite amount of matter and energy. I think you're barking up the wrong theory.

Eh said:

The geometry of the field (space) can be either infinite or finite, we just don't know which.

If you don't know then why are you arguing against me? According to you I could be right. I say one thing, and you say, well you're wrong cause we don't know. [?] Also, geometry deals with finite equations when used in real life situations.. True projective geometry deals with infinite lines, but these are adhered to a 2Dimensional Semishphere which cannot exsist in real space.

Then you said:

since by definition you cannot have a place without space. There logically can be no "outside" of space, and as I said space IS the gravitational field.

AGAIN! I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT SPACE CONTAINS GRAVITAIONAL FIELDS! Stop acting like I disagree with that statement. Also, you have to see that the word "place" is used as a concept and not its English definition. I think you are hung up on words. I also see no argument for why there cannot be "logically" no outside of space. You are saying there is gravity everywhere because gravity is infinite. Fine, if you asume gravity is infinite you could argue that, I do not asume that. You said you simply do not know. But then you say:

a finite universe does not lend credibility to the idea.

Yes, it actually does. Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere. Any absense of these exsisting things is "nothing". Tell me, if you ever got to the "hypothetical" edge of EVERYTHING, what would you call beyond that? And there would be an edge if the universe was finite. In fact, it has to have an end if it is finite. You can't say...there's is something else out there...because that is exsistence and it is not the edge.

Then you said:

The big bang is not incompatible with an infinite or finite space.

So its just like...whatever. Everything applies. Ok.

After you quoted me as saying:

I won't argue down to the atom, but I do like that you used the terms "finite amount of energy everywhere". Making me think again that you see the exsisting universe as finite. Which proves a "nothing".

You then replied:

Does not follow.

None of this makes sense to you? This is what doesn't make sense to me. You argue that we don't know if gravity is finite or infinite so I'm wrong for assuming that it is finite. Then you argue that the universe is infinite according to the Big Bang. Then you argue that the Big Bang doesn't care if the universe is infinite or finite. Then you say there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. Then you say even if the universe has an end, still doesn't prove there is a "nothing", which is exactly what proves there is a "nothing". THIS does not follow.

I don't mean to be so harsh. Please do not think these arguements are an attack on you personally. I'm just a heated debater

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Ishop ...If you don't know then why are you arguing against me? According to you I could be right. I say one thing, and you say, well you're wrong cause we don't know. [?]

I am arguing against your logic. Your claim that a finite universe implies there is a place where there is nothing, does not logically follow. While the universe may be embeded in external space, it is NOT a necessity. This seems to be a basic question of geometry.

Also, geometry deals with finite equations when used in real life situations.. True projective geometry deals with infinite lines, but these are adhered to a 2Dimensional Semishphere which cannot exsist in real space.

Nonsense. 1D lines apply to 2D surfaces as well as 3D areas.

AGAIN! I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT SPACE CONTAINS GRAVITAIONAL FIELDS! Stop acting like I disagree with that statement.

No, you don't get it. Space does not CONTAIN the field, it IS the field. No gravitational field, no space.

Also, you have to see that the word "place" is used as a concept and not its English definition. I think you are hung up on words. I also see no argument for why there cannot be "logically" no outside of space.

Then you need to learn some logic, seriously. The term "outside" IS a term related to to space. I see you are attempting to do away with the definition of "place" by calling it a concept. But that is pure nonsense, since the "concept" has always had a geometric meaning. You simply cannot invent any arbitrary definition of the word to slide out of an argument, especially in the context of this discussion. You also cannot have space (area, place, etc.) outside of space, as that is a blatent contradiction.

You are saying there is gravity everywhere because gravity is infinite. Fine, if you asume gravity is infinite you could argue that, I do not asume that. You said you simply do not know.

I did not say gravity, nor space is infinite. Are you actually reading anything?

Yes, it actually does. Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere.

Do you seriously not see the logical contradiction here? You have just said you think there is a place[/b] where there is no space. From basic logic it follow that you cannot have a place (region of space) where there is no space.

A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent. If space had an edge, that edge will simply be that furthest point there is. In geometry you can define an object without reference to external space, and that includes edges. It seems that geometry is more the topic here than ontology.

Any absense of these exsisting things is "nothing". Tell me, if you ever got to the "hypothetical" edge of EVERYTHING, what would you call beyond that? And there would be an edge if the universe was finite. In fact, it has to have an end if it is finite. You can't say...there's is something else out there...because that is exsistence and it is not the edge.

Sigh. It has already been explained to you why the universe does not posses an edge. If it did, crossing it would be exactly the same as if the universe was expanding on its own. The volume would be increasing.

None of this makes sense to you? This is what doesn't make sense to me...

I'm sorry, but your arguments are completely lacking in logic and sound reasoning. Your arguments have been addressed by members here, but you are refusing to address valid points, and are frequently hiding behind semantics. Worse, you are not reading the explanations given, or you have a reading comprehension problem. As a result you are coming up strawman attacks on arguments that were never made. Let's see what you wrote below for examples:

"You argue that we don't know if gravity is finite or infinite so I'm wrong for assuming that it is finite."

Never said that. I said your conclusion that a finite universe means there are places where there is nothing does not logically follow.

Then you argue that the universe is infinite according to the Big Bang.

Never said that either, though I pointed out that the theory is compatible with both infinite and finite.

Then you argue that the Big Bang doesn't care if the universe is infinite or finite.

See above.

Then you say there is a finite amount of energy in the universe.

And I never said that either. I said there is a finite amount of energy at each point in space. That's a far cry from saying the total amount of energy is finite, and no one who actually read the post would make that mistake.

Then you say even if the universe has an end, still doesn't prove there is a "nothing", which is exactly what proves there is a "nothing". THIS does not follow.

I have addressed this above. This is a question of basic geometry.

I don't mean to be so harsh. Please do not think these arguements are an attack on you personally. I'm just a heated debater

And don't take offense when I say learn your logic in this thread has been atrocious. It's not an insult, but needs to be pointed out and corrected if we are to have an intelligent conversation.

This entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of geometry, for example. The volume of an object has nothing to do with external space, and the edge or boundary of an object has nothing to with any space beyond it. It is misunderstandings like this that cause people to think the universe is expanding into a void. It does not take an expert on cosmology to refute that, as it is simply a question of geometry. As such, learning about it will avoid discussions like this in the future.

 

[kyleb]

Ishop, you might be interested in reading Gorgias' essay "On Non-Being." i dug around a bit hoping to find it online but had no luck. i imagine you can find it in just about any library though.

also, please note though that the essay is an example of sophistry and do not try to use such arguments as it tends to severely aggravate anyone who actually thinks with their own mind. "nothing" is very much a theoretical construct that has no place in reality, regardless of the fact that rhetorical arguments can lead people to believe otherwise.

 

[Ishop]

Eh, I see our responses frowing longer lol.

Let's start with your geometry lesson.

You said:

A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent

Lets take a square (basic geometry). There is a square, there is an end to the square. There is an area outside the square. This seems pretty basic to me. Here is a square, here there is not a square. What's the problem? Seems logical. Where is the flaw in logic?

Now, I'm throwing out the word space as far as me using it. In fact, I have not used it except to say I would accept your definition of space. Even the further explained one that space IS gravitational fields. You are the one applying the word space to my arguements.

The word place when referring to a location where no thing exsist will be known as plac# on my replies for now on. This is a concept in which you can determine where "nothing" is my seeing that there is no thing. It is a hypothetical understanding since you cannot measure "nothing" you are really measuring the boundries of exsistence. Here, geometry again. Such as you have four red squares in a cross pattern. There is an empty plac# in between all four squares and you can measure this. Not by itself, but by the four exsisting squares. Just as you can measure dark by the absence of light.

Also, when I spoke of geometry applied to reality, you said:

Nonsense. 1D lines apply to 2D surfaces as well as 3D areas.

1D lines are not present in reality. Even if you have a line of atoms side by side, it is still 3D becasue it has 3 sides to it. If you could see a line on one side, but it does not exsist on the other, that would be 1D.

After I said:

Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere.

You said:

Do you seriously not see the logical contradiction here? You have just said you think there is a place[/b] where there is no space. From basic logic it follow that you cannot have a place (region of space) where there is no space

Where did I say the word "space", "place", or "region" in what you quoted me as saying above? I said I agree that space is gravitaional fields...why would I then say that there is gravitaional fields(space) where there is no gravitaional fields(space)? I didn't and you are misreading me. This is why you do not see logic.

You also said:

A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent.

And you complain about MY logic? finite means that there is an end. If there is an end, then there is either something or nothing past that end. If not something or nothing tell me what then. Obviously if there is an end to spaace, universe, all exsistence, then there cannot be a something past the end, so there must be nothing. How is this illogical to you? A is exsistence, N is A - A, so if A = 2 then N = 0. This is soooooo basic logic.

You said:

In geometry you can define an object without reference to external space, and that includes edges.

Okay, define a square without its edges. Can you do it? No. Becasue without defining edges you can have no measurement. Geometry is all measurements. You start off in basic geometry class with a freakin ruler. Please show the mathmatical equation that will prove a square without using measurements. Can't wait.

you said:

This entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of geometry, for example. The volume of an object has nothing to do with external space, and the edge or boundary of an object has nothing to with any space beyond it.

Passing the fact that you are using the word space and not void where needed, I agree somewhat in what you are meaning here. However, if I draw a square, the void outside that square has no control over the square, but the square has defined an area where there is no more void.

I have on this thread agreed to your term of space, and your explanation of "expansion" although it is clearly growth. However your claims, while stating that they are logical and fall within the boundries of basic geometry...are not and do not. Correct me if I am wrong in asuming that what you mean to say is that all there is is exsistence...even if it is finite. The very fact that you say there is no "space" outside of exsistence reaffirms there is nothing outside of exsistence. No space, no nothing. You cannot get there, you cannot measure it, it does not exsist. Which is the very nature of "nothing"

Last but not least you said:

Sigh. It has already been explained to you why the universe does not posses an edge. If it did, crossing it would be exactly the same as if the universe was expanding on its own. The volume would be increasing.

This is why I put the word "hypothetical" in quotation marks before the word edge as you quoted me saying in your response. Agreed that if you did reach a "hypothetical" edge and went beyond it you would not be outside the universe as you are part of it. However you can clearly imagine if you were two steps ahead...what that is right now before you make it there. It is nothing. No space, no time, nothing.

If you are to respond again with "geometry" this and "geometry" that, would you please refer to some equation or graph which is part of geometry that would serve your ideas? Perhaps then you can help my "limited" knowledge of geometry as you put it lol.

 

[Ishop]

Kyleb said:

"nothing" is very much a theoretical construct that has no place in reality

and i couldn't have said it better myself. if it is not real, it is not part of reality. in fact, "nothing" is the opposite of reaity. It is concept. The absence of reality or exsistence is nothing.

However I will, for now skip your recomendation to read the essay since right after you refer me to it you say don't use it its rubbish. Hope you aren't a book salesman hehe.

 

[kyleb]

i did not say the essay is rubbish, only that it is an example of a sophistical argument that is used to convince weak minded people of fallacies. however, there is much to be learned from understanding why those arguments are wrong and how there is no "opposite of reality", although there can be the illusion of such.

 

[Eh]

Yes, these posts are getting long. But that is because you are not addressing the points being made, and are simply repeating the same drivel over and over. It's a waste of time to repeat myself over and over again, so I'm going to cut this short and focus on the crux of the argument.

Originally posted by Ishop

Lets take a square (basic geometry). There is a square, there is an end to the square. There is an area outside the square. This seems pretty basic to me. Here is a square, here there is not a square. What's the problem? Seems logical. Where is the flaw in logic?

Here is the first misunderstanding that isn't being addressed. There isn't any problem, until you insist that you need the space outside to define the square. The point I have made is that an object is defined without reference to any external space.

Where did I say the word "space", "place", or "region" in what you quoted me as saying above?

And here is where the bulk of the misunderstanding comes from. You are constantly saying that. From this thread alone, here are some of the times you have said that there is a place or area where there is nothing.

"...The noun is area. So instead of saying there is not a thing in this area. You say there is nothing here. Nothing meaning: not a thing in this area. So, even your explanation of expansion requires there to be a nothing. "

"...An area defined by the lack of something. It is a negative property and therefore can exsist."

"...This coincides with a finite universe meaning that there is somewhere outside the universe that has no universe "not a thing" including gravitaional fields and curves."

"...Also why the Big Bang theory proves there is an area with "not a thing" in it (nothing)."

"...Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere"

So whether you admit it or not, you HAVE been talking about space, and your arguments amount to saying there is a space where there is no space. Attempting to hide behind semantics is not going to work. And the point of this thread has been that space is a "thing" like anything else.

And you complain about MY logic? finite means that there is an end. If there is an end, then there is either something or nothing past that end.

This also has to do with the definition of a geometrical object. An "end" does not have anything to do with external space. You can take any point of a geometric object and move towards the furthest point in X direction. This point has nothing to do with being any space beyond it. While any object in our universe obviously has space beyond it's borders, that is only because it happens to be embeded in space-time. But the definition of an object has nothing to do with outside space, and so a finite universe is not necessarily contained with any external space.

Notice how I said not necessarily contained, not that it is impossible. It is only the argument that a finite universe MUST be contained by an outside is demonstrately false.

If not something or nothing tell me what then. Obviously if there is an end to spaace, universe, all exsistence, then there cannot be a something past the end, so there must be nothing. How is this illogical to you? A is exsistence, N is A - A, so if A = 2 then N = 0. This is soooooo basic logic.

Posters here have already explained to you countless times the meaning of a negative word like nothing, but you refuse to pay attention. "Not anything past the end means there is literally no outside at all. That is the proper logical use of negation, but you obviously don't see it. Further, I have shown you that space itself is a thing. So address those arguments, or stop wasting time.

 

[Mentat]

Well, I agree with Eh, about the whole BB argument - and I would reply to the arguments against it, but Eh is doing superbly, on his on. Anyway, I would also like to remind you all that this thread is not about BB theory. It is about the fact that "nothing" means "not anything", and that debates on what "nothing" is are pointless.

 

[CJames]

Yes exactly, Mentat. Ishop, this thread is about the semantics of the word "nothing." And while you keep saying you understand that there is no space outside of space Eh has shown you that you keep referring to it as though it were a place with area and distance.

You have proven Mentat's point nicely. The word nothing can construe things easily and should be avoided in most cases.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by CJames
quantumcarl,So you have heard this theory? It's sort of a consequence of quantum mechanics. Like a universe springs up due to uncertainty. It's sort of a weird concept. Separate universes. Separate everythings.

Since there is no spacetime connecting us to these alternate universes, they literally do no exist from our frame of reference. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "outta sight, outta mind."

Just as long as you aren't picturing a bunch of separate bubble universes growing next to each other, i'll agree. Because visuallizing that picture, you would imagine two of these universes might touch, which makes no sense. There is no space separating them, they are made of space time.

SO counterintiutive, and yet that's how it works.

To tell you the truth, CJames, I thought it was my own theory... but, its so simple that I also thought someone else would have come up with it, as well.

"Separate everything". Physically and conceptually, yes. However... the nuance of influence exists as well. And so complete separation seems only to be a concept, too.
That's like the myth of an "outside observer'.
We know this little phenomenon cannot exist in that the "outside observer" automatically becomes a part of that which they observe... through the power of observational influence and quantum logic(?). And relativity is partially suspended.

There is another consideration in this philosophy of Quantum Mechanics and Uncertainty. Consider the field generated by a universe. This would extend beyond the actual physical "bubble" for some amount of "area". This gets into a gradient logic that only exists in physical and conceptual models... because I don't see a field (g?) generated by a universe as intermingling with what Mentat describes as "not anything".

We really do need to use "counter intuition" to get a hold of these concepts.

 

[Ishop]

CJames, you just referred to "nothing" as "it". Does that mean you think it is "something"...of course not. I would not presume that and nor should any reasonable person asume that I am applying space and area to "nothing". We say "there is nothing there" because our language is limited. I have said plenty of times that the word "nothing" causes problems because people get stuck in the limitations of language just as you and Eh both thik that I am applying area and space to "nothing" by saying there is nothing outside of exsistence. Our language prohibits me from putting it any other way.

Mentat said:

It is about the fact that "nothing" means "not anything", and that debates on what "nothing" is are pointless.

I have said this continuously. In almost every post. "not anything". However in a forum about Philosophy no thing is pointles to argue. If it was pointless to argue then why start a thread on it. The bringing up of BB theory was only to illustrate that the concept of nothing is present. Not anything is not anything. Eh was saying there is no not anything or no nothing, which is what I was arguing against.

 

[(Q)]

“The universe is expanding into nothing.”

“The universe is not expanding into anything.”

The first statement suggests closure (unless one wishes to argue the concept of nothing.) The second leaves one hanging to beg the question, “So, what IS the universe expanding into?”

 

[kyleb]

if it was expanding into something then it would not be the universe.

 

[Ishop]

Agreed with Q and Kyleb. Except the universe cannot expand into anything. Anything would then be considered part of the universe since it exsist.