# How can anything come from nothing

#### Messiah

Originally posted by Mentat
And yet I haven't been answered...you didn't say anything that it was equivalent to.

You know, I think another problem is that you've equated being about to refer to something but not doing so with referring to "nothing". This is also not the case, but is much closer to correct. You did indeed refer to nothing (=you didn't refer to anything) but you are no closer to finding what the word "nothing" refers to then you were to begin with. " " isn't nothing, it's two quotation marks around and empty space (the empty space itself being something).
"Nothing - Undefined/Abstract" = is a fiction, does not exist, cannot be pondered because logic requires definition
"Nothing - Defined/Logical" = The Empty Set or Ø

It is purely semantical. "Nothing" has two connotations. You seem willing to only accept the first connotation.

#### Mentat

Originally posted by Messiah
"Nothing - Undefined/Abstract" = is a fiction, does not exist, cannot be pondered because logic requires definition
"Nothing - Defined/Logical" = The Empty Set or Ø

It is purely semantical. "Nothing" has two connotations. You seem willing to only accept the first connotation.
Because according to the semantics of the issue (and I know the semantics by now, I've been debating this same point throughout PF2 and PF3) the empty set is not nothing, but something. If you were to try to refer to what the empty set contained, then you wouldn't be referring to anything (IOW, you'd be referring to nothing at all), but the set itself is something...just as the word "nothing" is also something, but doesn't refer to anything.

What is so hard to agree with here?

#### Messiah

Originally posted by Mentat
Because according to the semantics of the issue (and I know the semantics by now, I've been debating this same point throughout PF2 and PF3) the empty set is not nothing, but something. If you were to try to refer to what the empty set contained, then you wouldn't be referring to anything (IOW, you'd be referring to nothing at all), but the set itself is something...just as the word "nothing" is also something, but doesn't refer to anything.

What is so hard to agree with here?
Yes, the empty set is something - a set, but the empty set does NOT 'contain'. The logical representation of this set in mathematics is Ø.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is not the empty set - it is not a set at all. "That which does not exist" does not exist. It (or they?? or can there be a negative number of them???) has/have no properties or attributes, it/they/-they lacks everything - including a definition. To consider 'Nothing' would be NOT to consider. To perceive 'Nothing' would be NOT to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' would be NOT to understand. Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space.

#### UltraPi1

"The reference is to nothing" is precisely equal to "The reference isn't to anything"
Thats what I said - The reference is to nothing.
which is equal to not referencing at all
BS - The circle in the pic gives all the reference you need.

http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg [Broken]

Whats inside the circle is nothing, and don't give some idiotic diatribe about photons coming from your screen. Surely you knew this to be an analogy of a fundamental entity, or maybe you didn't.

I've come to the conclusion you will never understand what I'm saying. Not that you couldn't understand, but that you in part refuse to understand. Plus you aren't thorough enough to piece it together. I find myself asking quite often - What the hell is he asking this question for? How could he not get it? Why did he dodge that question? I figured it out the other day when I checked the list of your last posts.
Here are the times of the posts I looked at.
4.52
4.53
4.57
4.58
4.59
5.00
5.01
5.02
5.07
5.09
5.12
You are spread pretty thin. So thin that you couldn't possibly have time to concentrate past 30 seconds on any percept within the context of forced induction. You in effect - Are running on fumes with an expectation that I supply all the gas.

Simply put - I'm not gonna fart with this anymore. At least not with you.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Mentat

Originally posted by Messiah
Yes, the empty set is something - a set, but the empty set does NOT 'contain'. The logical representation of this set in mathematics is Ø.

'Nothing' - in the abstract - is not the empty set - it is not a set at all. "That which does not exist" does not exist. It (or they?? or can there be a negative number of them???) has/have no properties or attributes, it/they/-they lacks everything - including a definition. To consider 'Nothing' would be NOT to consider. To perceive 'Nothing' would be NOT to perceive. To understand 'Nothing' would be NOT to understand.

Exactly! That's exactly how it (the word "nothing") is supposed to be used (according to the very semantics of the issue). No other way is even permissable, since it would fail to meet the criterion of not referring to anything.

"Nothing" doesn't refer to a set, "nothing" refers to what an empty set would contain (and, of course, an empty set doesn't contain, just as the word "nothing" doesn't refer).

Are you getting it yet?

#### Mentat

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Thats what I said - The reference is to nothing.
Then why do you keep saying that, when referencing nothing, you are referring to something. And don't say that you didn't say you were referring to something, because you specifically said you were referring to "a thing of nothing". Do you not yet realize how non-sensical that statement is, if "nothing" = "not anything".

BS - The circle in the pic gives all the reference you need.

http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg [Broken]

Whats inside the circle is nothing, and don't give some idiotic diatribe about photons coming from your screen. Surely you knew this to be an analogy of a fundamental entity, or maybe you didn't.
No, and I still can't see the analogy...what fundamental entity could possible be so big!? Seriously, a fundamental entity would be at the smallest incriment of space, and you would thus never observe empty space inside of it, you'd wouldn't be able to observe "inside of it" since there would be no "inside of it".

Besides, your first statement "what's inside the circle is nothing" is precisely equal to "there isn't anything inside the circle" which cannot be true because I clearly perceive some space and black color inside of it.

I've come to the conclusion you will never understand what I'm saying. Not that you couldn't understand, but that you in part refuse to understand. Plus you aren't thorough enough to piece it together. I find myself asking quite often - What the hell is he asking this question for? How could he not get it? Why did he dodge that question?
Don't you realize that I've asked myself the exact same questions about you? But I don't post those questions because I'd just as soon give you the benefit of the doubt.

I figured it out the other day when I checked the list of your last posts.
Here are the times of the posts I looked at.
4.52
4.53
4.57
4.58
4.59
5.00
5.01
5.02
5.07
5.09
5.12
You are spread pretty thin. So thin that you couldn't possibly have time to concentrate past 30 seconds on any percept within the context of forced induction. You in effect - Are running on fumes with an expectation that I supply all the gas.
Are you talking about responses on this thread, or on threads altogether? Besides, you have yet to - even once - attack my counter-arguments directly, so what use do I have for mulling over your constant repetitions of your opinion? Besides, I spend plenty of time thinking about what you've said before, when I'm off-line (right along with what everybody else has said), but I don't see any valid counter-argument on your part.

Simply put - I'm not gonna fart with this anymore. At least not with you.
Your choice. But, if you really think I'm not paying attention, just address my counter-arguments (about the semantics of the issue, and about the fact that you are making non-sensical and incorrect statements about the term "nothing" since the semantics of the issue do not allow it to be used as you are using it) directly and see. If you are correct, you shouldn't have any problem actually disproving what I've said - in which case, I'll admit defeat. However, don't think that repeating what you've said before, without directly countering my points, is going to constitute "proof" because that is not how logical debate works.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### UltraPi1

Then why do you keep saying that, when referencing nothing, you are referring to something. And don't say that you didn't say you were referring to something, because you specifically said you were referring to "a thing of nothing".
Well if you kept track of what I was saying - You would have understood that when I say thing - It's conceptually oriented. You continue to remain on the physical level, and in doing so - Comprehension of what I am saying becomes quite unattainable. On the purely physical level - There is no thing. On the conceptual level - There are things of nothing. Reasoning upon this - There is no physical level, but for the understanding of it in physical terms. Understanding nothing on a purely conceptual level will proffer understanding of how one can get something in nothing. Just so there is no misunderstnding - The word something is entirely conceptual also. In fact - All words are conceptual, and if you should take this to completion. {All of existence is conceptual}.
No, and I still can't see the analogy...what fundamental entity could possible be so big!? Seriously, a fundamental entity would be at the smallest incriment of space, and you would thus never observe empty space inside of it, you'd wouldn't be able to observe "inside of it" since there would be no "inside of it".
Definition of analogy - Similarity between unlike things.

For cripe sakes - Obviously I can't draw an actual fundamental entity on your screen. It's an (drumroll) analogy! I assumed (rightly so) that you would take it that way. Considering that you spend but one minute on each post - I find it hard to believe you spend any time at all to digest what you respond to. I can't even discuss whats inside the circle in the pic, if you can't even get past a simple analogy.

Besides, you have yet to - even once - attack my counter-arguments directly, so what use do I have for mulling over your constant repetitions of your opinion? Besides, I spend plenty of time thinking about what you've said before, when I'm off-line (right along with what everybody else has said), but I don't see any valid counter-argument on your part.
I have no problem with your counter arguments accept that you remain on the physical level, which I say does not exist, but for the conceptual understanding of it. If you can't transition yourself to the conceptual level. I.E. Use some imagination. You will not understand what I'm saying. Judging by your failure with the analogy - I see no hope for comprehension on a conceptual basis.
If you are correct, you shouldn't have any problem actually disproving what I've said.
Easy for you to say when you don't understand my point of view. If conceptual reality acts in accordance with what we term physical laws - How can one prove what seems to be entirely the same as a physical universe, to the point of choosing one over the other? Quite frankly ....I don't have a short simple answer to this. So you're stuck with the long one.

#### Messiah

Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly! That's exactly how it (the word "nothing") is supposed to be used (according to the very semantics of the issue). No other way is even permissable, since it would fail to meet the criterion of not referring to anything.

"Nothing" doesn't refer to a set, "nothing" refers to what an empty set would contain (and, of course, an empty set doesn't contain, just as the word "nothing" doesn't refer).

Are you getting it yet?
That is where we differ in definition.
Nothing - logical/defined - is the empty set or Ø
Nothing - abstract/undefined - is UNdefined

Are you willing to acknowledge that there are two connotations??

#### Mentat

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Well if you kept track of what I was saying - You would have understood that when I say thing - It's conceptually oriented. You continue to remain on the physical level, and in doing so - Comprehension of what I am saying becomes quite unattainable. On the purely physical level - There is no thing. On the conceptual level - There are things of nothing.
But aren't semantics conceptual? I don't mean to be a pain, I'm just asking. Semantics, according to your reasoning, should be conceptual, and would thus apply to the idea that "nothing" can refer to a thing.

Definition of analogy - Similarity between unlike things.

For cripe sakes - Obviously I can't draw an actual fundamental entity on your screen. It's an (drumroll) analogy! I assumed (rightly so) that you would take it that way. Considering that you spend but one minute on each post - I find it hard to believe you spend any time at all to digest what you respond to. I can't even discuss whats inside the circle in the pic, if you can't even get past a simple analogy.
If you'd pay closer attention, you'd realize that I was simply saying your analogy is flawed. It's a fine illustration, but it is flawed as an analogy. You are supposed to find similarity between unlike things, not take one thing and say that it's similar while the facts disagree with you. The circle has space inside it (empty as it may be), and a fundamental entity does not. Where is the analogy?

Easy for you to say when you don't understand my point of view. If conceptual reality acts in accordance with what we term physical laws - How can one prove what seems to be entirely the same as a physical universe, to the point of choosing one over the other? Quite frankly ....I don't have a short simple answer to this. So you're stuck with the long one.
Which is?

#### Mentat

Originally posted by Messiah
That is where we differ in definition.
Nothing - logical/defined - is the empty set or Ø
Nothing - abstract/undefined - is UNdefined

Are you willing to acknowledge that there are two connotations??
No. There may be two connnotations in common usage, but not in the logical semantics and etymology of the issue. The fact is that the word "nothing" remains a compound of the words "no" and "thing", and thus the word "nothing" does not qualify as nothing, and the empty set also does not qualify. Only the undefined/undefinable can qualify as the proper definition, since that is what the word "nothing" was made for: to refer to absence, not presence.

Just to be clear, if the empty set can be referred to, then it cannot be nothing at all, but is indeed something. If the stuff that's inside the empty set cannot be referred to (since there is no such stuff), then this does qualify as nothing at all.

#### Messiah

Originally posted by Mentat
No. There may be two connnotations in common usage, but not in the logical semantics and etymology of the issue. The fact is that the word "nothing" remains a compound of the words "no" and "thing", and thus the word "nothing" does not qualify as nothing, and the empty set also does not qualify. Only the undefined/undefinable can qualify as the proper definition, since that is what the word "nothing" was made for: to refer to absence, not presence.

Just to be clear, if the empty set can be referred to, then it cannot be nothing at all, but is indeed something. If the stuff that's inside the empty set cannot be referred to (since there is no such stuff), then this does qualify as nothing at all.
To use the word 'nothing' is to define.
If you intend to illustrate the meaning of the word in the abstract sense, you would use no words.

#### heusdens

On being and nothing

Well, let's try to get this straight.

Firstly there is being, and then there is nothing, which is just the absence of being. Being and nothing are just each others opposites.
In the most abstract sense, being and nothing are the same, that is they are just the opposites of each other (being is not nothing and nothing is not being).
Being and nothing define each other. Without being there is no non-being.
In the dialectical sense, being and nothing are a dialectical unity, which is: Becoming.

#### Messiah

Re: On being and nothing

Originally posted by heusdens
Well, let's try to get this straight.

Firstly there is being, and then there is nothing, which is just the absence of being. Being and nothing are just each others opposites.
In the most abstract sense, being and nothing are the same, that is they are just the opposites of each other (being is not nothing and nothing is not being).
Being and nothing define each other. Without being there is no non-being.
In the dialectical sense, being and nothing are a dialectical unity, which is: Becoming.
If that were true, then wouldn't the opposite of (+1) be (Ø) instead of (-1)

#### Mentat

Originally posted by Messiah
To use the word 'nothing' is to define.
If you intend to illustrate the meaning of the word in the abstract sense, you would use no words.
I agree with the second statement, since "nothing" is not supposed to have a definition, except as a "lack of". However, what does that first statement mean?

#### Messiah

Originally posted by Mentat
I agree with the second statement, since "nothing" is not supposed to have a definition, except as a "lack of". However, what does that first statement mean?
Words have meaning - by their very use, they define.
Logic requires definition.
You cannot define something which is UNdefined (abstract 'Nothing'); hence you must be referring to the logical 'Nothing' which is Ø

#### Mentat

Originally posted by Messiah
Words have meaning - by their very use, they define.
Not always. "Dark" has no meaning, outside of the reference to an absence of light (or a lesser level thereof). It doesn't refer to something, but rather to the lack of something. "Nothing" is simply the epitomy(sp?) of this use of words to denote absence, it denotes the absence of all things.

Logic requires definition.
You cannot define something which is UNdefined (abstract 'Nothing')
But it is defined: The absence of all things (including wavicles, spacetime, words, and sets!).

; hence you must be referring to the logical 'Nothing' which is Ø
No, because that (for the millionth time) would be something. It would thus not meet the qualifications that the very semantics of the issue lay down for the use of the word "nothing".

#### Iacchus32

Originally posted by Mentat
Not always. "Dark" has no meaning, outside of the reference to an absence of light (or a lesser level thereof). It doesn't refer to something, but rather to the lack of something. "Nothing" is simply the epitomy(sp?) of this use of words to denote absence, it denotes the absence of all things.
No ... no-thing denotes the absence of some-thing, unless of course you're speaking of nothing in the "absolute sense." And yet it obviously can be used either way.

#### UltraPi1

But aren't semantics conceptual?
I did say there is no physicality to the universe. That it's all conceptual. That would mean semantics are conceptual also.
If you'd pay closer attention, you'd realize that I was simply saying your analogy is flawed. It's a fine illustration, but it is flawed as an analogy. You are supposed to find similarity between unlike things, not take one thing and say that it's similar while the facts disagree with you. The circle has space inside it (empty as it may be), and a fundamental entity does not. Where is the analogy?
Obviously the illustration is not a fundamental entity. That makes it unlike a fundamental entity. The depiction was to point out similarities, and the need to use a little imagination to bring it in line with a fundamental entity. The purpose was to point out what a fundamental entity is. I can't show you an actual fundamental unit ... so I'll show you a depiction of one. Get it?

So rather than play along for purposes of understanding exactly where I'm coming from - You choose to discuss some photons coming from you screen, and argue from that angle. I'm trying to explain a conceptual understanding of existence, not a physical one as you know it.

Let me try this again.

Here is a depiction of nothing.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/non-existence.jpg [Broken]
This is also what space looks like if space does not act upon you.

Heres a depiction of what space looks like when some of it does act upon you.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/030725_dark_nebula_04.jpg [Broken]
Keep in mind I'm only speaking of what we see, and not what we feel, hear, smell and taste, although the process is the same for the other senses.
And here is yet another depiction of space acting upon you.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/mountains.jpg [Broken]
The inquiry would be - What is it that is acting upon us in terms of what we see?
You would say that whatever it is - It's physical.
And I am saying it is entirely conceptual.

Lets get to the crux of the matter ( the original depiction).
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg [Broken]
This is what I term - A fundamental entity. Which is nothing inside it. Nothing outside it, and the concept of it. I'll even go as far as calling this a photon at rest, or this is what a photon would look like if it were at rest, Even though I know photons don't rest, and I can't actually see it the way it's depicted. This is a conceptual understanding of a photon (fundamental entity) through this depiction.

This is a 2D depiction. Essentially it is a slice from a spheroid shape for purpose of discussion. The circle in the drawing is not actually there on a physical level. If I zoomed in on a section of the circle - I'd get something like this.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/appl3.jpg [Broken]
Lets zoom in a bazillion times closer for effect.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/appl2.jpg [Broken]
The point here is that the line for the circle does not get fatter as we zoom in on it, because there isn't anything there. There is no physicality to it at all. It's there, but not physically. I would call this a conceptual reality of a fundamental entity, and all entities act in accordance and within the concept of physical laws.

On a mathematical scale - It's like this.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/Infinity.jpg [Broken]
There is an infinity of these concepts possible, all in the primordial soup of nothing. Each and every concept after the first one is a geometric twin of the first. The purpose of the universe is for the eventual complete definition of nothing - Of which never happens, because nothing is undefinable given the infinity of it's very nature.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Jimmy

The closest I can come to the idea of nothing is perfect symmetry. Everything is the same everywhere; wherever or whatever that may be.

What I mean is, if there was nothing to differentiate one point from another or one thing from another then that could be considered pseudo-nothingness perhaps. I realize that this is not the same as the pure abstract notion of nothing since the potential for something seems to be implicit in this scenario. Maybe this is what god was and he simply got bored with sitting around nowhere being nothing and decided to shake things up a little. A little asymmetry to differentiate one place from another, one thing from another. *shrug*

I'm being a little silly but mostly serious.

Damn this thread! I can't sleep now because of the sound of my brain buzzing as it trys to comprehend the incomprehensible.

Discussing nothing surely is a difficult task. I suppose that trying to comprehend it is futile. That won't make me stop though. The moment you think about the idea of nothing, you necessarily attribute properties to it. At that point the true idea of nothing vanishes. I suppose you would have to not think of nothing to really grasp it and yet not grasp it. Perhaps it is like infinity or the speed of light or absolute zero. You can get as close to nothing as you like but never reach it; next to nothing as it were. Maybe nothing is the sum of everthing. If you add all the numbers, negative and positive, the sum would be 0. -infinity...+...infinity=0
.
I'm going bed. My head hurts.[zz)]

Last edited:

#### Mentat

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No ... no-thing denotes the absence of some-thing, unless of course you're speaking of nothing in the "absolute sense." And yet it obviously can be used either way.
"Nothing" denotes the absence of anything that an be called "some-thing".

#### Mentat

Nice pics, UltraPi1.

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Obviously the illustration is not a fundamental entity. That makes it unlike a fundamental entity. The depiction was to point out similarities, and the need to use a little imagination to bring it in line with a fundamental entity. The purpose was to point out what a fundamental entity is. I can't show you an actual fundamental unit ... so I'll show you a depiction of one. Get it?
Yes, but there was a distinct problem with the illustration: it had space inside the fundamental entity. This would not be the case if the entity were indeed fundamental, and that is a very relevant point. Can you see why?

So rather than play along for purposes of understanding exactly where I'm coming from - You choose to discuss some photons coming from you screen, and argue from that angle. I'm trying to explain a conceptual understanding of existence, not a physical one as you know it.
Why exactly do you think so? Just curious.

Let me try this again.

Here is a depiction of nothing.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/non-existence.jpg [Broken]
This is also what space looks like if space does not act upon you.
Is it space, or is it nothing? Space is something, that's the problem with the previous illustration too. You've got to get rid of the space, or else there will always be something there. Aside from the fact that space is indeed a physical entity (AFAIC), you also have the fact that you said everything was conceptual...which would mean that even the concept of space is something, not nothing. "Nothing", by its very semantics, doesn't allow for the presence of anything.

The inquiry would be - What is it that is acting upon us in terms of what we see?
You would say that whatever it is - It's physical.
And I am saying it is entirely conceptual.
Then you said...

Lets get to the crux of the matter...
That's exactly what I think is acting on us: matter

( the original depiction).
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg [Broken]
This is what I term - A fundamental entity. Which is nothing inside it.
Then why is there space inside?

Nothing outside it, and the concept of it.
Then why is there space outside of it?

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Mentat

Jimmy, perhaps I can put you to ease by letting you know that which people have been trying to refute since PF2..."nothing" = not anything. Take any sentence where the term "nothing" is used, and you can replace it with "not anything", thus creating a sentence with equal meaning but less confusion. This is what I call the Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics, or E.i.N.S., for short.

Now, if the term "nothing" comes inside quotes (like it does in this sentence) then it is different: there is only reference to the word "nothing" and...well...nothing else .

So...
Originally posted by Jimmy
The closest I can come to the idea of nothing is perfect symmetry. Everything is the same everywhere; wherever or whatever that may be.
The idea of symmetry is interesting, but it isn't nothing, it's something. Note, when I said "it isn't nothing" it means "it's something" (since it's a double negative on the phrase "it isn't not something). And, for your sentence (The closest I can come to the idea of nothing), the E.i.N.S. equivalent is "The closest I can come to no idea at all" or "The closest I can come to that which isn't an idea of anything".

See? There's no deep concept involved at all, if you stick to the proper semantics, as some are less inclined to do than others.

#### Jimmy

Mentat: The idea of symmetry is interesting, but it isn't nothing, it's something. Note, when I said "it isn't nothing" it means "it's something" (since it's a double negative on the phrase "it isn't not something). And, for your sentence (The closest I can come to the idea of nothing), the E.i.N.S. equivalent is "The closest I can come to no idea at all" or "The closest I can come to that which isn't an idea of anything".

See? There's no deep concept involved at all, if you stick to the proper semantics, as some are less inclined to do than others.
I did refer to it as pseudo-nothing. I said the closest I can come to nothing is... Despite my being semantically challenged I believe you understand the idea I was trying to convey or not convey. Like I said...

Discussing nothing surely is a difficult task. I suppose that trying to comprehend it is futile. That won't make me stop though. The moment you think about the idea of nothing, you necessarily attribute properties to it.
At that point the true idea of nothing vanishes. I suppose you would have to not think of nothing to really grasp it and yet not grasp it.
Now here, I should have left out the not and just said think of nothing. What I meant was not to actively think about that idea we are discussing.

I will read your thread, however. I'm sure you probably referenced it somewhere else in this thread. I admit to skimming through a lot of this thread because there was a lot to catch up on. I was anxious to jump in the discussion.

Besides, if nothing is equivalent to not anything, then is it really a mistake to just say nothing. I agree it can get confusing but within the context of this thread it's not that difficult to understand when people refer to that concept of not anything.

Last edited:

#### UltraPi1

Is it space, or is it nothing?
This would depend on how you look at it. If I reference the distance between two points - It's space. If I reference a point - It's a thing of nothing. When I reference the fundamental - It's a point. There are no points within or on a point.
As Jimmy pointed out - Discussing nothing makes it a thing. I say it's a conceptual thing. I say that thing is real. It's physical because we think it is. We are the logical fallout of the impossibility of the kind of nothing you wish to discuss. The futile attempt is on your side ,,,, for your nothing is undefinable. My discussion is about the reality of nothing - What I term the reality of Non-Existence. I accept nothing as a thing, and there isn't a thing I will do about it - For I know of nothing else.

#### Messiah

Originally posted by Mentat
Not always. "Dark" has no meaning, outside of the reference to an absence of light (or a lesser level thereof). It doesn't refer to something, but rather to the lack of something. "Nothing" is simply the epitomy(sp?) of this use of words to denote absence, it denotes the absence of all things.
'Dark' and 'Light' are conditions, not existences. Light is simply the propagation of energy via a medium. Science uses the label 'photon' to explain the transference of energy. What actually occurs is that the condition of each media is - in turn - changed by its adjacent neighbor until something 'absorbs' the energy. You don't REALLY believe photons are elemental particles, do you? Where do they go when they 'die'?

Originally posted by Mentat

But it is defined: The absence of all things (including wavicles, spacetime, words, and sets!).
Yes - the LOGICAL connotation of 'nothing' is defined (logic requires definition). You seem bent on calling it 'the absence of all things', I tend to use the more abbreviated symbol 'Ø'.

Originally posted by Mentat

No, because that (for the millionth time) would be something. It would thus not meet the qualifications that the very semantics of the issue lay down for the use of the word "nothing".
I have no problem with the definition : "absence of all things" = Ø

What else do you think 'Ø' IS??

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving