An Exercise in nothing semantics.

[Mentat]

Ishop, glad to see that you have grasped the concept rather superbly.

(Q), a void exists. If it exists, then it is not nothing, but something. If it is something, then it exists within the universe. The universe is not expanding into a void, it is not expanding into anything at all.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, it doe stand to reason that if the universe is not expanding into anything, the question of what it is expanding into is entirely moot, but I suppose someone might still ask it (perhaps if they don't believe me). Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light .

Also, the view is not that the universe is expanding into a void. It is that the universe is not expanding into anything (I feel like I'm repeating myself ). A void is something.

To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.

As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!

Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

If a void is defined as non-existence, how can it exist as something? That is a contradiction.

Non-existence is not part of the universe.

 

[arivero]

For an atomist, a void is defined as the container of distances.

 

[Eh]

Yes, the atomists got over the seemingly contradictory concept of the void. They did accept that while the void was empty of all matter and substance we normally refer to as being, it was still "something" in the fact that is was the spatial reality.

Today, the empty space is still often called a void in physics, even though it is not as empty as the atomists would have believed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.

As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!

Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..

It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all

Well, in that case... I'm not goin' there.

 

[Ishop]

Just being picky again, Mentat said:

It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them.

I would use dark as an example. Cold can actually be measured and it is the slow motion of particles tht causes it. Also in response to your reply to my last post...I have always said those things, they have just been misread I suppose.

 

[kyleb]

he means as in absolute 0 "cold." just like absolute darkness such things do not exist in nature.

 

[quantumcarl]

According to the title of this thread, it concerns an excercise in the "semantics" of "nothing".

Yet we have the author claiming that there are no semantics to the word nothing and that there can be only one meaning attached to the word when, truthfully, semantics involves the fact that there is an individual meaning to a word according to who is using the word.

We have mentat claiming that he and only he has the correct definition for the word "nothing". He is unbending and claims that if someone's semantic idea of the word does not match his semantic idea of the word... they are "wrong".

I think, perhaps, mentat might better have titled this thread
"My Philosophy Concerning Nothing"... so that his defensive posture could make a bit more sense to those participants concerned.

Moreover, mentat is arguing in support of his semantic understanding of "nothing" in an absolute vacuum of proof concerning his topic... relying soley on his and other's speculations which is the nature of a semantic debate.

Further to this, in a semantic debate or "excercise, no one participant is wrong, save for the one who makes such a claim.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
According to the title of this thread, it concerns an excercise in the "semantics" of "nothing".

Yet we have the author claiming that there are no semantics to the word nothing and that there can be only one meaning attached to the word when, truthfully, semantics involves the fact that there is an individual meaning to a word according to who is using the word.

We have mentat claiming that he and only he has the correct definition for the word "nothing". He is unbending and claims that if someone's semantic idea of the word does not match his semantic idea of the word... they are "wrong".

I think, perhaps, mentat might better have titled this thread
"My Philosophy Concerning Nothing"... so that his defensive posture could make a bit more sense to those participants concerned.

Moreover, mentat is arguing in support of his semantic understanding of "nothing" in an absolute vacuum of proof concerning his topic... relying soley on his and other's speculations which is the nature of a semantic debate.

Further to this, in a semantic debate or "excercise, no one participant is wrong, save for the one who makes such a claim.

"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.

I disagree. (And when I do so... it does not mean you are "wrong")
Semantics is the study of the "dual-meanings" of words. Even if someone came to this thread and said... "nothing is everything"... this would be their meaning and something they would attempt to prove... by way of debate.

If a word can have dual-meanings its bound to have even more meanings when two or more people are involved in a discussion concerning a word and its meaning.

It gets more tedious from here. No one meaning is correct, or incorrect, when dealing with a word as semantic as "nothing".
It may not be as tedious as studying the semantics of the word "love"... but close.

So, while it is prudent to state one's disagreement with a definition of a word... it is only destructive to the process of a discussion to say a definition is "wrong".

It is, by far, more constructive to say... convince me... baby!

However... in the case of scientific debate there are wrong points of view and definitions and there are right ones.

I might say an electron is a politician's demographic constituency when it is actually something that remains in, joins or leaves the orbit of an atom. In the case of my first statement, I would be way "wrong" because there is only one, established, meaning to the word "electron".

 

[Mentat]

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

If, indeed, your's is a scientific debate then it belongs in a scientific area of this forum. As it stands it is disguised as a philosophical debate by way of residing in the philosophy area. Perhaps moving the idea to a more rigorous audience and set of rules will help you explore "nowhere" and "nothing".

"Under the wieght of logical debate" this topic of yours, "nothing", is practically impossible to debate since nothing does not exist, by certain definitions of the word. Debating something that does not exist can be draining and is usually reserved for experienced script writers with FOX or COLUMBIA PICTURES.

Now, I'd like you to note... in a philisophical way, how there was no post... or... "nothing" here... before I put a post here... and that, in light of this... no post existing here has helped to facilitate the posting of this post.

If there had been a post here, where this one is, I would not have been able to post here. And this, philosophically and scientifically, is called the "potential" for "something" due to the absence of "something".

That is why I tend to define "nothing" as the potential for "something" to occur... (in a philosophical manner)... and after the manner of Lao Tzu's works from 600 bc.

 

[CJames]

OMG these word games are going to drive me completely and utterly mad.

Nothing does have semantics, it can be interpreted as meaning absolute nothing, or as an area where there is nothing except for space and time, or an area where there is space and time and air and a room but nothing else.

That is why it is easiest to say the universe isn't expanding into anything.

But as has been brought up, that has semantics as well, because you could interpret it as the universe isn't expanding at all.

My answer, the universe isn't expanding into anything, it is simply expanding.

It's not perfect but I can't take this anymore.

 

[Loren Booda]

Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.

Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.

Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."

 

[Mentat]

quantumcarl,

American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "semantic":

"Of or pertaining to meaning."

This is the kind of semanticism I was talking about, I had not idea that the word actually had to do with dual meanings.

Don't make Philosophy and Science mutually exclusive. They are not, and while mine is a Philosophical debate, it has a lot of basis on scientific principlesk - and this is what I meant by "scientific debate" (I also meant that the specific debate, of what the universe is "expanding into", was a scientific debate).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.

Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.

Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."

Say what? I caught the difference between the first two statements, but not between the last two ("not anything" and "not...anything").

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.

 

[Loren Booda]

The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.

So you disagree that "nothing" can be replaced with "not anything", and still retain the meaning, while eliminating foolish debates about what "nothing" is?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."

"I can bring not anything to mind" is grammatically flawed. It makes no sense.

Also, if you are saying that saying that there is not anything outside of the universe is not the same as saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, you may want to rethink your stance - as "isn't" is precisely equal to "is not".

The point I'm making is that when someone says that the universe is not expanding into anything, they might as well be saying that the universe is expanding into not anything, and the only reason that they don't is because this is a grammatically flawed sentence structure (at least in this language), and would probably confuse someone.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.

Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?

You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.

Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?

You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.

First off, I adress every argument, because every argument has merit. I don't just say, "I'm right, your wrong", and close my mind to new ideas.

Secondly, I did come up with a good argument as to why "void" couldn't be used; a void is something. All voids are within the universe, because the universe is everything. When someone answers the question, "what is the universe expanding into", with "nothing", they shouldn't mean that it is expanding into a void (because that's something), they should mean that it isn't expanding into anything.

 

[(Q)]

But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.

Forgive my persistence, (Q), but look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing.

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing). If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing

True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).

I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.

If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.

Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.

Forgive my persistence, (Q)

No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing

True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).

I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.

If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.

Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.

Forgive my persistence, (Q)

No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on. [Important point:] Space[/color]...is[/color]...something[/color]

 

[chosenone]

try this one on for size.2-d in 3-d thinking.if you take a circle or a square or a triangle on a piece of paper"2-d"and turn it side ways as to only see the side of it,the circle,square,and triangle would become a line,so these 3-d objects side ways are all lines,with this line you can make it bigger,or smaller,then when you turn it around,you've changed the shapes size without destroying it in the process.so what happens if you take a circle,turn it side ways,shrink the line as small as you can get it,when you turn it around,you will get a circle,inside the circle is space,no matter how small you make the line you will always get space inside the circle when you turn the line around!thus infinite space!but the fun part is when you get the cirlce with the space in the middle you put a dot in the middle,which is a line sideways then turn it around and get a cirlce,infinite space!

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on.

Either you are wrong or every dictionary is wrong. I wonder which it is?

Noun: the state of nonexistence.

http://define.ansme.com/words/v/void.html

noun: the state of nonexistence.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=void&ls=a

[Important point:] Space is something

Space is NOT something. Particles exist in space – the gravitational field permeates space – light travels through space – all matter in the universe is contained in space - but space is not something. Space is simply the distance between two objects.

From the same dictionaries:

Noun: an empty area (usually bounded in some way between things.)

Noun: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.