How can anything come from nothing

[Eh]

It's just something that comes out of GR. Any notion of distance is defined as a property of the field, and so it follows that if the theory is true, then space may have no independent existence. This is not proof, as it is possible that the gravitational field does sit on a backdrop of some absolute space, somewhat like icing on a cake. But this backdrop of space is completely redundant. If everything can be defined in terms of the field, the simplest explanation is that space and the field are inseperable.

But the debate over whether space has independent existence has a long history. Modern physics seems to support Descartes notion that space only exists if there is something present in it.

 

[gcn_zelda]

Is there even such thing as nothing? Everything is something. Even nothing is something.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by gcn_zelda
Is there even such thing as nothing? Everything is something. Even nothing is something.

I refer you to the first post of this dusty old thread.

 

[wolram]

all these words of wisdom have come from a brain, obviously
not all brains are connected the same way, that is a good
thing it inspiers origonal thinking.
it seems this thread could go round in circles for the
life of humankind may we let it RIP?

thankyou all .

 

[pace]

Originally posted by THANOS
nothing exist but we can't comprehend it. So trying to explain it is meaningless.

nothing doesn't exist, isn't that more reasonable and explainable ?

Does that mean that it doesn't exist(that it's only substance everywhere), or does that mean that it's vacuum (as I from what I understand, is your oppinion) ? Should it end in no words, or a difficult realization ?

To say that nothing exist, we only think or feel it does, is imo unecessary scepticism. We clearly feel, see, taste, hear, think existence all the time.


I'm tempted to say I don't believe in true vacuum, that substance is everywhere. Saying that nothing is a little more than nothing and is a some form as Vacuum just make less sense than say that nothing is nothing and doesn't exist, existence reigns. (also infinity and eternity because that there somehow is a wall of stop somewhere makes less sense that there should be something behind that wall)
Is that interesting ?

 

[Eh]

He isn't saying we don't exist, or that there isn't anything that does. Instead, he is just making the logical fallacy of reifying the zero.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Eh
He isn't saying we don't exist,

Oh I'm sorry, the middle pharagraph was for somebody else said. I understood his sentence as that he believed in true vacuum.

(Thanks for clarifying)

 

[Eh]

What's wrong with a true vacuum? The concept is at least logically consistent.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Eh
What's wrong with a true vacuum? The concept is at least logically consistent.

As I said, that nothing should be a little more than nothing: true vacuum. Makes less sense to me than just saying: nothing isn't there, substance is.

0 = 0
,
nothing=nothing
,
nothing= ... = don't agree

but:

... = agree.


Thus nothing should necessarily end in: ... (no words, no mathematics, nothing) We logically say a lot of stuff, we never really say nothing. And we've never experienced nothing, even the air around us was oxygen as we learned. So it's logical and sensical.

 

[Eh]

What do you define to be a substance?

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Eh
What do you define to be a substance?

Another subject, np,

Everything. And of it we experience all sorts of modes and attributes. (Spinozistic)

Edit: Although I don't know how very interesting all this is. As Spinoza once said:

(IV)P67: A free man thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation on life, not on death.

 

[wolram]

look eminent people, very few have the stamina to keep up
with this thread, can you agree to disagree? i will always
be open minded on this subject, the crux of the matter is
lack of evidence, i hate the verbalism put up or shut up
but i think it applies here.
you are all unique.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by wolram
the crux of the matter is
lack of evidence

Yes, the lack of evidence for nothing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
nothing doesn't exist, isn't that more reasonable and explainable ?

Does that mean that it doesn't exist...

That what doesn't exist?

 

[quartodeciman]

nothing much

Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?

Please forgive one piece of nonsense:

Q: Which should one prefer, happiness or a sandwich?
A: A sandwich.
Q: Why?
A: Nothing is better than happiness.
Q: Agreed!
A: A sandwich is better than nothing.
Q: Wait a minute! :(
A: So, draw your own conclusion. :)
.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quartodeciman
Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?

Please forgive one piece of nonsense:

Q: Which should one prefer, happiness or a sandwich?
A: A sandwich.
Q: Why?
A: Nothing is better than happiness.
Q: Agreed!
A: A sandwich is better than nothing.
Q: Wait a minute! :(
A: So, draw your own conclusion. :)
.

What exactly is your point, quartodeciman?

 

[sepultallica]

man this thing is still going? i think the thread lost its productivity around page four.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sepultallica
man this thing is still going? i think the thread lost its productivity around page four.

It keeps going because people aren't listening to what Eh said on the first page!

 

[Zantra]

It's been somantics for the last 5 pages. For myself, I still do not accept that we KNOW there was nothing before BB. Perhaps something unlike anything we know, but not nothing. That's an assumption I"m not willing to make.

If there was nothing, I accept that there was nothing. But we do not know that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science does not know, cosmology does not know, of anything before the big bang. There are theories, but they have yet to be confirmed even as math, let alone with physical evidence.

Science does know, with a beautiful and rich and growing body of interlocking theory and evidence, what has happened since some epsilon time after the big bang.

 

[Arc_Central]

Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?

Now yer talkin !

Nothing is the thing.

Nothings are the things.

Nothing as a thing must be finite.

An infinity of nothing is another story. It is undefined (not a thing) - Yet it is the source of the definition of one thing of nothing , and any number of things (nothings).

In a mathematical sense - Infinitely nothing over one nothing is the initial beginning of our universe. (One) being the conceptual understanding of nothing as a thing. I.E. The brains of the whole operation.

Nothing, one , and infinitely nothing are constants. They remain that way no matter when or where you are in the universe regardless of how many nothings there are in existence.

The thing is nothing, and it's the ones that count.





I can't help but do nothing - It's all there is.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Mentat
That what doesn't exist?

Excatly! Hello substance.

It isn't much scientific. But philosophicly the issue is more than just a semantic debate.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
It's been somantics for the last 5 pages. For myself, I still do not accept that we KNOW there was nothing before BB. Perhaps something unlike anything we know, but not nothing. That's an assumption I"m not willing to make.

If there was nothing, I accept that there was nothing. But we do not know that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fine, just remember that when you say "there was nothing" it is perfectly equivalent to "there wasn't anything". The semantic problems arise when people treat statement like "there was nothing" as though they meant "there was something called 'nothing'", which is just wrong.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Now yer talkin !

Nothing is the thing.

Nothings are the things.

Nothing as a thing must be finite.

An infinity of nothing is another story. It is undefined (not a thing) - Yet it is the source of the definition of one thing of nothing , and any number of things (nothings).

In a mathematical sense - Infinitely nothing over one nothing is the initial beginning of our universe. (One) being the conceptual understanding of nothing as a thing. I.E. The brains of the whole operation.

Nothing, one , and infinitely nothing are constants. They remain that way no matter when or where you are in the universe regardless of how many nothings there are in existence.

The thing is nothing, and it's the ones that count.





I can't help but do nothing - It's all there is.

Arc_Central, I strongly suggest you read this ASAP, your post is full of semantic errors (in fact, the concept behind the post, is itself a semantic error).

I mean no offense by this, I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
Excatly! Hello substance.

I don't understand what you mean. I asked "that what doesn't exist", because people have been referring to the word "nothing" as though it referred to something (which it obviously doesn't).

It isn't much scientific. But philosophicly the issue is more than just a semantic debate.

Not really. The fact that people are using the word "nothing" as though it referred to something is a semantic problem, and from it arises many seemingly substantial problems, which would not exist if it weren't for a semantic error in the premise.

 

[quartodeciman]

Mentat: What exactly is your point...?

No point intended.

Two items: an invitation to view the question in reverse; a humor dialogue, exemplifying the mistake described by the later replies of Mentat

(laughter is not required)

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Mentat


Not really.

Really, the discussion is philosophicly more than semantics. Parmenides(there is no empty space). Democrit, Lucretius and the atomists(said: reality=atoms and empty space. Beside some other talk about 'nothing'). Spinoza(and Descartes?) who denied vacuum(empty space). But after that it's pretty silent. It's not much of a talked about issue, no. Democrit's atomist theory has prooven very fruity, but it's been mostly denied by philosophers. Your negative semantic arguments also pushes itself towards my conclusion which I thought was funny, ergo my last comment.

 

[Arc_Central]

Arc_Central, I strongly suggest you read this ASAP, your post is full of semantic errors (in fact, the concept behind the post, is itself a semantic error).

I mean no offense by this, I'm just pointing it out.

No offence taken.

I may be in error, but I can't for the life of me see it. Nothing in the absolute sense is undefinable. The meaning in a dictionary requires that you know what a thing is to proffer an understanding, but nothing in the truist sense does not allow that option.

 

[quartodeciman]

How can nothing come from something?

Let's apply the Mentat translation:

How can no thing come from something?
or
How can any thing not come from something?
or
How can things not come from something?

Precisely inasmuch as any thing or things do(es) not come from some thing.

It isn't exactly a semantic mistake.

------
How can something come from nothing?

Let's apply the Mentat translation:

How can something come from no thing?
or
How can something not come from any thing?
or
How can something not come from things?

Precisely inasmuch as some thing does not come from any thing or things.

------

The next problem is dealing with 'come from'. Can any thing come from itself?

 

[THANOS]

whos on third base?