How can anything come from nothing

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Mentat, some people have such a poor grasp of logic that it's not worth wasting your time with them. If they can't think logically then no amount of reasoned arguments will convince them they are wrong. If some folks want to go on and on with pseudo intellectual drivel, let em. Save yourself the trouble.

I've been given this (probably very good) advice before (remember the never-ending debates with Lifegazer and Alexander?). Maybe I'll finally heed this advice someday (but not until my post count's the highest again ).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
Well, yea that's what I'm saying(said some posts ago, I said I didn't believe in nothing), only it didn't come out so well in my last post there, but I was more reffering to our processes along the way, ie how Democrit argued that reality was atoms+empty space. My issue was that it is a physical question, not a labyrinth of words. I think we agree that nothing isn't there, only you started to use logic of words, and I started to insinuate about physical things.

I quoted some Philosophy History btw, if my poor languange skill don't tell you anything, read up on some, it's very fascinating.

I guess we were kind of pointing to the same point then, pace, but you still (even in this post) use the word "nothing" as though it referred to something, which it doesn't. That's a real concern, since some people seem to get caught in debates about absolutely nothing, simply because of a semantic error.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
A field of nothing! <--- This is a thing.
Think of it this way - You have a balloon... Inside the balloon is nothing... Outside the balloon is nothing...The material of the balloon (you know ... the stretchy stuff) is the concept of one (the field).

This is the problem. Inside the balloon there is something: air. And even if there wasn't, there'd be space, which is something. But the word "nothing" doesn't refer to something, it doesn't refer to anything.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Mentat
I guess we were kind of pointing to the same point then, pace, but you still (even in this post) use the word "nothing" as though it referred to something, which it doesn't. That's a real concern, since some people seem to get caught in debates about absolutely nothing, simply because of a semantic error.

bob bob(norwegian expression for 'maybe, maybe not').
I think maybe you're taking your semantic issues too far.
As much as I think it's imperative that we do something about our world-state, I hate to keep people from searching, they are trying to do something too. I don't believe we're talking about nothing, we're being active beings that search. And talking about 'nothing' isn't a waste of time, ie The atomists definitions has prooved very fruity. (On a side note, thus you are counter-talking yourself in your above post, saying 'caught in debates about absolutely nothing'. Cause you're saying like me, you don't believe in nothing.)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
I hope so, and since you think the whole thread has gotten silly. It behooves you to leave in the logical sense.

Goodbye! CYA

The thread wouldn't have become silly if people didn't combat basic logic with personal opinions. You are not the only one, but he was partially referring to you, since you tried to say that Universe was both logical and illogical at the same time...which is a completely illogical (silly?) statement.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
bob bob(norwegian expression for 'maybe, maybe not').
I think maybe you're taking your semantic issues too far.
As much as I think it's imperative that we do something about our world-state, I hate to keep people from searching, they are trying to do something too. I don't believe we're talking about nothing, we're being active beings that search. ie The atomists definitions has prooved very fruity. (On a side note, thus you are counter-talking yourself in your above post, saying 'caught in debates about absolutely nothing'. Cause you're saying like me, you don't believe in nothing.)

And that is the point, I said they are debates about nothing, which - as per E.i.N.S. - is equivalent to saying "They are not debates about anything". The fact that you took my use of the word "nothing" to be referring to something is indicative of what I suspected: even you (in spite of your very logical arguments and good posts) have not completely grasped the semantic issues at hand.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Although Eh won't be back if he is to be logically consistent. I find this paragraph to be close to what I am saying. That space is not truly empty. It is represented by individual entities of nothing, and for that matter - So are the atoms we recognize. The difference between atoms and space is minimal. Our understanding of it all is time (motion) oriented.

This is why Eh is calling the thread silly: You actually just referred to discrete units (individual entities) of nothing. If they (a pronoun) are discrete units, then they are something.

 

[pace]

Well, I never was any good with words, so thank you for saying my posts are good. Math was more my thing . But I think philosophy is good stuff, it connects language and math afaiu. If you like math, maybe you start to like language more, and via verca.

Edit: I don't want to say Semantics isn't important though, I think a lot of conflicts happen because we don't understand what's outside of us, or misinterpretate each other. But not just others, but also ourself

 

[Mumeishi]

I am following this silly thread with interest.

Sorry, what is E.i.N.S. ?

 

[Arc_Central]

This is the problem. Inside the balloon there is something: air. And even if there wasn't, there'd be space, which is something. But the word "nothing" doesn't refer to something, it doesn't refer to anything.

If you followed this thread a little more closely - You would understand that the balloon analogy was in reference to the fundamental unit (the individual (one). I wasn't discussing Bozo making balloons for kids.

Let me try this again - The balloon (an analogy) is a representation of what a (fundamental unit) is like. No - It's not full of air...No - it's not full of space. Space is made up of these fundamental units... along with what we call matter. Whats inside these units is nothing. If you could examine what's inside one of these units ... you would find nothing. There are no parts to a fundamental unit - get it?

In this particular case ...nothing is a thing.

You actually just referred to discrete units (individual entities) of nothing. If they (a pronoun) are discrete units, then they are something.

Now yer gittin it. Nothing is a thing...Bravo!
If you want to talk about nothing in the sense that you propose. You would have to leave the universe. I prefer not to go there, because there would be (nothing) to discuss. You know ... The kind of nothing that isn't anything at all.

you tried to say that Universe was both logical and illogical at the same time...which is a completely illogical (silly?) statement.

Completely illogical? That wouldn't work either.
Logic would make no sense whatsoever if it were like this (1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111). Therefor it's like this (11111110000001100000110110101111111111000000000100001101001001001010011111111100010010010010000000110011111), or this (0 0 00 0 000 00000 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0), or this (1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111111111 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 1).
For every logic is a corresponding illogic.

 

[wolram]

I am following this silly thread with interest.

how can anyone call this thread silly i have found it
deep as deep can be, shame on you MUMEISHI

 

[Mumeishi]

There is nothing to discuss!

 

[Mumeishi]

Anyway, the best theory we have for the ultimate nature of matter and energy is that it is composed of superstrings not nothingness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
I am following this silly thread with interest.

Sorry, what is E.i.N.S. ?

Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics. My little gem from times past. You can just read the first post, to get the gist, if you want.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
If you followed this thread a little more closely - You would understand that the balloon analogy was in reference to the fundamental unit (the individual (one). I wasn't discussing Bozo making balloons for kids.

Let me try this again - The balloon (an analogy) is a representation of what a (fundamental unit) is like. No - It's not full of air...No - it's not full of space. Space is made up of these fundamental units... along with what we call matter. Whats inside these units is nothing. If you could examine what's inside one of these units ... you would find nothing. There are no parts to a fundamental unit - get it?

In this particular case ...nothing is a thing.

Then why do you call it "nothing"? What kind of sense does it make to use a word that isn't supposed to refer to something, to refer to the most fundamental unit of existence? Besides, why should this be the case, when there is much more evidence for string theory, or other such scientific endeavors?

Now yer gittin it. Nothing is a thing...Bravo!
If you want to talk about nothing in the sense that you propose. You would have to leave the universe. I prefer not to go there, because there would be (nothing) to discuss. You know ... The kind of nothing that isn't anything at all.

That's the only kind of "nothing" there is. That's the only thing the word "nothing" is supposed to be used for. It would save us all a lot of trouble, if you would rename your fundamental unit.

Completely illogical? That wouldn't work either.
Logic would make no sense whatsoever if it were like this (1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111). Therefor it's like this (11111110000001100000110110101111111111000000000100001101001001001010011111111100010010010010000000110011111), or this (0 0 00 0 000 00000 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0), or this (1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111111111 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 1).
For every logic is a corresponding illogic.

Say what? Yes, for the body of prescriptions that we call "Logic", there is a corresponding set of things that are "illogical", of which set your hypothesis is probably a member (no offense, but that's what I meant when I said "completely illogical", and it's what Eh probably meant when he said "silly").

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Anyway, the best theory we have for the ultimate nature of matter and energy is that it is composed of superstrings not nothingness.

What a guy/gal! You see, this is the kind of thing I like to hear.

 

[Mumeishi]

Without wishing to offend him or her, I don't see much point criticising a half-baked pet theory for which there is no evidence. Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.

BTW: I am a guy. You can call me Mumeishi-San.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Without wishing to offend him or her, I don't see much point criticising a half-baked pet theory for which there is no evidence. Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.

BTW: I am a guy. You can call me Mumeishi-San.

Alright, I just try to avoid making assumptions about the gender of a poster, without good reason to do so, since I could offend someone.

Anyway, you may be right about Arc, but I just want to clear up that empty space is still something (I know you probably already know this, but I'm clearing it up for the rest of the people here, since there has been debate on this point numerous times in PF history).

 

[wolram]

Anyway, the best theory we have for the ultimate nature of matter and energy is that it is composed of superstrings not nothingness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
as far as i know superstrings are just another theory, probably
the hardest theory to prove, to say that superstrings have
always existed is like saying that the electron has always existed
or anything you care to choose, in the final analyasis there
is no posibility of anything existing, unless it is "the thing"
from which everything has come from, as far as i am concerned
the oposite of "thing" is "no thing" for us to exist we must
have had a beginning one cannot have a beginning from "no thing"
so some "thing" must have always existed.
any one who makes something from pure vacuum will surely win a nobel prize

 

[Mumeishi]

Even empty space is something. The modern view of physics is that 'empty space' is a geometrical 'entity' (perhaps a Higgs field) with three extended spatial dimension and one extended time dimension. This space is not absolute or fixed - it can be distorted. Not only that but at a small scale this supposedly empty space has a froth of virtual particles popping into and out of existence.

That's not nothing. It is something that can be described with some precision geometrically with relativity and microscopically with quantum mechanics.

That is not nothing. Nothing cannot be described.

 

[Mumeishi]

Wolram,

Perhaps some 'thing' has always existed. For as long as there has been time anyway.

 

[wolram]

"no thing", in my argument is "pure" vacuum to have an
alternative to that is to have some "thing", which has
to come from some "where", even the "where" is supposed
to have come from the BB, so the BB is posited to be
the start of everything, so what existed befor the BB?

 

[wolram]

MUMEISHI, thankyou, you must be one of the few that understands
pure logic.

 

[Mumeishi]

A pure vacuum is what I just described. If you got rid of the virtual particles, you'd be describing something which probably does not exist, and even so, it would still be a space-time of 4 extended dimensions. As I said, that is not nothing.

According to the theory, not-a-thing existed before the big bang, bacause there was no time before the big bang. 'Before' did not exist until then. At the 'beginning' space-time curves around to meet itself like the pole of the Earth - if you go back in time far enough you will find that you are moving forward in time.

Time is not an absolute entity within which the universe exists. Time is a property of the universe, just as space is and both of them are distorted by local events in the universe. Haven't you heard of Albert Einstein? The universe is all. There is no outside. There is no before and there is no after - just reality itself.

 

[Arcs_Central]

Arc, seems to taken the fact that an atom is mostly empty space and jumped to conclusions from there.

I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist. That existence comes in the form of a field - not a particle. That a particle is nothing more than localized foci of fields.

I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.




What is your definition of a particle? Let me try this analogy as to what I think you think a particle is. There is this ten foot diameter steel ball that when you hit it with a hammer - It goes cling clang.

If I'm wrong...please explain.

 

[Mumeishi]

cling clang

When did I mention particles ? In what way does my argument depend on a conception of particles as like steel balls that go 'cling clang'? Straw man.

I'm saying that the difference between space and particles is minimal at best. I'm saying that each and every square inch of the universe is represented in some form. That these forms are the geometric embodiment of that which does not exist.

What do you mean? Can you be more precise?

I do not consider space to be empty, nor do I consider particles to be full.

Of course you don't think of particles as 'full' (whatever that means), given that you don't believe in particles.

 

[Arcs_Central]

It would save us all a lot of trouble, if you would rename your fundamental unit.

A fundamental unit would have no parts. It has to be made of nothing, but if it will make you happy...I'll call it a loogetite.


A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence. Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.

I have a question for you.

How many loogetites can you fit into a voltswagon?

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Arcs_Central
A fundamental unit would have no parts.

True

It has to be made of nothing,

Perhaps this is the semantic source of your confusion. If something has no constituent parts you could arguable say that it is 'made of no thing', but that doesn't mean that it IS nothing. If it was nothing it could never be able to be form the constituent parts of anything else. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

A loogetite is a geometric representation of Non-Existence. Essentially a loogetite is nothing as a thing.

Have you been eating those funny little cakes again?

How many loogetites can you fit into a voltswagon?

An infinite number - nothing occupies no space. Unlike the fundamental particles in the real world, which is why there is a finite (but high) number of those that would fit in a VW.

 

[Arcs_Central]

When did I mention particles ? In what way does my argument depend on a conception of particles as like steel balls that go 'cling clang'? Straw man.

Just trying to figure out where you stand. So do they go cling clang?

Of course you don't think of particles as 'full' (whatever that means), given that you don't believe in particles.

On the contrary - A localized foci of a field is particle like in the clasical sense, but they don't go cling clang. I.E. There is no such thing as a collision. A particle is like a Christmas present (a bunch of fields wrapped up). Unwrap the present and out comes the fields in the form of free ranging photons.

What do you mean? Can you be more precise?

I find myself asking - Why bother. I can't get anyone past nothing as a thing in the form of a field. How then could you accept a foci of a field that gets localized (orbits) where half the field eminates inward to a point as a particle, and the other half generates outward as a gravitational field?

 

[Arcs_Central]

Perhaps this is the semantic source of your confusion. If something has no constituent parts you could arguable say that it is 'made of no thing', but that doesn't mean that it IS nothing. If it was nothing it could never be able to be form the constituent parts of anything else. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

This is the nitty gritty of it all - to reduce to pure simplicity. We can take the reductionist approach down to absolute nothing in the clasical sense of not anything. At which time we must turn around and make something from nothing. I can't think of any other way to do this other than to part out nothing (geometry at work). In this approach there is an infinity of nothings in nothing. It begins with one nothing, then two, then three, and four, and so on. In this situation - infinity/389577577759 is the same as infinity/949994999. Any number of nothings would be equal to any other number of nothings up against an infinity of nothing.

You might ask - how can you tell one nothing from another? This is somewhat of a sticking point with me, and it requires more thought for sure. I will say that if I consider nothing as a thing - It must have form...absolutely. At the moment...that form is a field.


One might argue that a particle is something as opposed to the space (nothing) that surrounds it. There are few knowledgeable people that would make that claim - me included. If this is not true...there are few choices for a replacement. I say that there are only things made of nothing. We differentiate one nothing from another through motion (time). I.E A field acts upon you, then a time passes before another field acts on you. When a field acts upon you ...it is a one - When they don't...it's a zero. This is absolute logic verses it's total absense, and it's quite telling.