Question - is it impossible for nothing to exist?

[Nereid]

Hm...they've forgotten my "Exercise in 'Nothing' Semantics" already .

Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics was a post on PF2. It was a post on the very early PF3. It was supposed to do away with these kind of discussions, bu I guess you never really can.

Ah yes, but only a tiny number of grizzled veterans would remember (and maybe by now most have so many 'senior moments' that they can't either).

I'll see if I can dig it up, and post a link to it here ...

Edit: Here it is!

 

[Fredrick]

Attitude, attention, and nothing

The ultimate truth does not exist; it is only within context that truths exist. In my many years of work around the subject of nothing, I have started to see that pre-existing ideas may color the view of people on the subject of nothing.

Though I cannot vow of course for each and every person, most people who somehow believe that unification exists have a real hard time giving a position of importance to nothing (though everyone appears to get the image immediately that nothing inside someone's wallet can be a grave, important and therefore significant situation). Denying aspects of the phenomenon of nothing may occur.

People who tend to believe that the universe is more a place of duality or is based on multiple principles seem to have less of a problem giving nothing its own spot. They consider referencing one of the strongest aspects of the phenomenon of nothing. Again, this distinction may not be true for everyone, and for instance I did not talk about people who simply do not have a preference one way or the other if unification is the ultimate picture or if our universe is based on duality/multiple principles.

Communication is a difficult task in that each word is based on its own specific meaning, I should say meanings, and these meanings often are not simply black and white. Languages differ, and even within the same language variations exist. In science, for instance, there is a tendency to eradicate the confusion that comes with ordinary language and therefore words used in science are preferably based on single meanings. When communicating with each other scientists - who have learned to use this particular way of communication well - can diminish communication errors. So there is a good reason for the strict use of language in science. But a lot would be lost if we would always use scientific language (humor based on double meanings of words is probably the first to go).

When discussing a word like 'nothing' communication becomes more complicated because nothing is not easy to capture. As said before, the number zero appeared rather late in math. Despite of what some try to make us believe, there is no single meaning to nothing. Nothing can be both insignificant and significant. When confronted with another person who appears to hold on to a narrow view on something, one can often not do much else than simply let go; ergo do nothing more.

There will always be people who will try to capture the truth by limiting their view. This may deliver wonderful insights in a wide range of fields, but may not deliver an ultimate view on everything. According to me it is better to see the limitation in all (even science and beliefs have their limitations) than to wallow in self-created limited realities about reality.

 

[Mentat]

Ah yes, but only a tiny number of grizzled veterans would remember (and maybe by now most have so many 'senior moments' that they can't either).

I'll see if I can dig it up, and post a link to it here ...

Edit: Here it is!

Well, it was never a greatly celebrated post anyway, but it could easily be invoked (and not just by myself...tinge of pride...sorry, won't happen again ) whenever these kinds of questions arose.

Thanks for posting that link, it was nice to see it's PF3 version again. The PF2 version was much more rigorous, IIRC, but that one was sufficient for its time.

 

[Mentat]

Frederick, if you don't mind, I'll run a few choice statements through the E.i.N.S., an try to make sense of them then (which is like taking a = b and turning it into ac=bc which is the same thing, but stated differently).

Though I cannot vow of course for each and every person, most people who somehow believe that unification exists have a real hard time giving a position of importance to nothing...

Post-E.i.N.S. --> Though I cannot vow, of course, for each and every person, most people who somehow believe that unification exists have a reald hard time not giving a position of importance to anything[/color]...

Denying aspects of the phenomenon of nothing may occur.

Denying aspects of the phenomenon that isn't[/color] anything[/color] may occur.

...seem to have less of a problem giving nothing its own spot.

...seem to have less of a problem not[/color] giving anything[/color] its own spot.

Nothing can be both insignificant and significant.

There isn't[/color] anything[/color] that can be both significant and insignificant.


If you examine all of those statements (which are semantically equivalent to your own (quoted) statements), you'll notice that some of them are perfectly "true", but perhaps not in the way you had intended them.

 

[Fredrick]

Respect for those we disagree with

Thank you for posting your remarks. I had gotten the gist already of what you are saying the first time you wrote it. I just disagree with it and I try to disagree with it respectfully.

Your definition seems to be a limited delivery of 'nothing' while mine is larger or at least, there is more to it than you seem to deliver when using the word nothing. I prefer to look through the window and have a view that I possibly misinterpret than being the person who denies there is a window and therefore does not even look.

The importance for me about 'nothing' is that it delivers a better view on everything. Nothing itself is not anything, but there is a significant nothing, and there is an insignificant nothing. In science, looking for an overall theory, a significant nothing means that unification is not possible (like in religion, a belief in multiple gods does not allow a single god, multiple gods are different gods that on some level have nothing in common or said differently, exist in separate places), while if nothing is insignificant one should be able to find a unified field of forces (like in religion a belief in a single god does not allow multiple gods, and the single god contains everything, or said differently is on a fundamental level not split). Both views cannot be correct at the same time. Is the significant nothing (split mode) correct or is the insignificant nothing (unified field) correct? For me that is a window allowing me a view of the whole. I would not see this window if it wasn't for understanding the phenomenon of nothing. I do not mind if we disagree about the word nothing, I am more interested in the phenomenon.

It is difficult to let the other person be. It appears we both have a little bit of a problem letting go. So, I'll try to avoid repeating myself when I said it already. Hmm, interesting thought, repetition is the act of making a new statement but it is one to which nothing was added.

Just kidding.

 

[Mentat]

Frederick,
I didn't mean to sound dogmatic. You don't have to agree with me. My suggestion, however, given the fact that "nothing" is semantically equivalent to "not anything", you should probably seek a different word to describe what you mean.

Meaning, in debate, is greatly dependent on the meanings of the words used. To help in the conceptualization of what "nothing" means -- historically, semantically, and etymologically -- let's try a comparison. The word "nowhere" is a very similar term. It has the same etymological, semantic, and historic bases. Now, if we were to use to term "nowhere" to refer to a place, we would be misusing it, would we not? Perhaps we wish to refer to a place that isn't like any other, or that is otherwise special, but we should seek a different word, because "nowhere" is taken (it has an established meaning).

Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Fredrick]

Nobody

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Mentat.
I do. That's why I already mentioned that scientists prefer a restrictive use of words.

I prefer words to be what they are, and sometimes that means a word has more than a single meaning. Representatives in the Senate may represent the people, but at the same time may not be representative of the people (for instance, only 1 in 7 elected officials in the U.S. are women). Representatives may therefore not be representative. Single words can therefore even contain a conflict in themselves, yet nobody seems to have a problem with it. I have no problem with the fact that you believe the word nothing is a word with a single meaning only, that can be understood in one way only. I am glad you have no problem if I understand it in more than one way. I too claim the dictionary as my source for using this word correctly. You may be surprised to see what I think it means: not anything.

It is not the word that is important, it is the meaning the word contains/portrays. The importance of nothing should not be a discussion about the meaning of the word but about the phenomenon. The phenomenon of nothing is interesting, not the word.

In the example in the previous note I delivered two versions about everything that are identical in all known ways, but they differ in one way only; one contains a significant nothing, while for the other nothing is insignificant. The only way to deliver the distinction between both theories one must give a place of importance to nothing (subsequently in the place of importance the distinction is then made whether nothing is important or not). If you prefer to read this text, while replacing the word nothing with something you like better, be my guest. If you can make the distinction obvious in a scientific way while not using the word nothing (or an equivalent of the word nothing) I am all ears. I think you cannot, but I will be the first to applaud if you can.

Do you see what I am getting at?

 

[Mentat]

Mentat.
Single words can therefore even contain a conflict in themselves, yet nobody seems to have a problem with it.

"Nobody"? By that, did you mean to imply that there isn't anybody that has a problem with it, or is there a deeper meaning? (Please note, I'm not being sardonic, I really want to know whether the reasoning on the term "nothing" extends further than just that term).

I have no problem with the fact that you believe the word nothing is a word with a single meaning only, that can be understood in one way only. I am glad you have no problem if I understand it in more than one way. I too claim the dictionary as my source for using this word correctly. You may be surprised to see what I think it means: not anything.

But, if that were the case, how could you possibly even use this phrase (unless you were quoting someone else in criticism):

The phenomenon of nothing

The phenomenon that isn't anything? I'm not just repeating myself, this is what you said you think "nothing" means: not anything.

In the example in the previous note I delivered two versions about everything that are identical in all known ways, but they differ in one way only; one contains a significant nothing, while for the other nothing is insignificant. The only way to deliver the distinction between both theories one must give a place of importance to nothing (subsequently in the place of importance the distinction is then made whether nothing is important or not). If you prefer to read this text, while replacing the word nothing with something you like better, be my guest. If you can make the distinction obvious in a scientific way while not using the word nothing (or an equivalent of the word nothing) I am all ears. I think you cannot, but I will be the first to applaud if you can.

Do you see what I am getting at?

No. I'm sorry, but to say that the concept of their being no unified field theory requires a "significant nothing" (re-termed to fit your definition of the word: "that which isn't a significant anything") not only seems like an a priori assumption, but also fails to make any sense to me (again, I don't mean to offend, I really can't make sense of it).

 

[Fredrick]

Lost

I don't mean to offend, I really can't make sense of it.

I see. Too bad. I have no problem getting both what you are trying to say and what I am trying to say.

Langauge is a tricky business because in itself it is an artificial vehicle. The word 'tree' is an artificial invention for the actual living thing we describe with it. The word and the living thing are not one and the same. As such language requires both good speakers and good listeners. If one side gives up trying to understand the other, language stops being good enough to keep on exchanging ideas because language is artifical. That reasoning supports of course the wish in the scientific community to bring words back to have a single meaning only. After this note, I will give up trying. Excuses for this (and for repeating myself).

I present two ideas; one about the universe in which unification is the basis, and one about the universe in which unification is not the basis. Both ideas are in a materialistic way completely identical because they are both ideas about one and the same object: our universe. They differ in that one idea represents separation as the cause of our universe coming into existence, while for the other a fundamental separation is not considered the cause.

Again, the fundamental difference between both ideas is that one has a universe as subject that came forth in the Big Bang, where all parts remain to have a connection to one and each other on some level. The theory is called unified field of forces. In essence this theory describes to the idea that all matter is connected in fundament.

The other idea has the exact same universe as subject, coming forth into creation in the Big Bang, but where the parts came into existence due to a fundamental separation. In essence this theory describes to the idea that all matter is in fundament not connected (though various connections may be found but not between all forces).

Nothing in both ideas can be considered as 'not anything,' yet in one theory it is truly not important, while in the other theory it is the reason our universe came into being. Both theories are scientific theories; even though both will not be true at the same time. How would you call the difference in both ideas? I call it the difference between a significant and an insignificant nothing.

I will deliver the same image once again, yet this time in a religious context. One image is that everything can be brought back to god, while in the other image multiple gods represent parts of our universe/existence. These two images exclude the other. The fundamental difference between these two images is the importance of nothing, not anything, where for one there isn't anything else (all belongs to a single god), while for the other image there is nothing, not anything, not even a connection, in between the gods.

The old Greeks did not believe in a single god. Their ideas are captured in their myths. In Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus and his men encounter an island of Cyclops. One of them captures Odysseus and his men and locks them up in his cave. There are two reasons Odysseus was able to escape the man with the single vision. The first one was that they punctured the Cyclops' single eye, and secondly, Odysseus had introduced himself as 'Nobody.' When the other Cyclops of the island came to the closed cave of the screaming Cyclops, this Cyclops answered to their questions that Nobody had punctured his eye, and that they should try to prevent Nobody from escaping. That's how Nobody got off the island.

That's why my book is called: In Search of a Cyclops. A lot (but certainly not all) of physicists are looking for a single theory of everything.

 

[Jio Moonshadow]

"NOTU will be a great discovery" Dr. Einstein.

 

[Jio Moonshadow]

I've obtained copyright on my first books some time ago. For some reason I studied the unsolved scientific enigma most of my life. The last two years I intensified my studies to all branches of science. Finally after making many discoveries, about four months of sure focus and daily work I had it. What is missing. If you are truly a physicist you understand. My first examine of the universe is called The Logic of Negativity. Also the Advanced Logic of Negativity, Environmatics. For some reason I am able to figure things out in an inverted sense and logically able to relate them to nature and express them in a mathematical sense. This seems to be a discovery that I continue to develop. What did that man leave behind. Who would I tell. I was able to relate a lot of missing logics. From quantum mechanical funtions to the nothing that is spoken of, black holes and antimatter.

 

[Jio Moonshadow]

Small Example Black Hole: FSA-Force to Siphon Acceleration.

Under the understanding that the universe is a vacuum. Constants -17to the 3rd, -18to the 3rd, and -19to the 3rd, CNP or constant negative pressure, respectively changing indifferent areas of the universe. After a nova explosion the constant of the universe environment would be affected in the surrounding areas. Ex -15to the 3rd CNP PSI. A non atomic universe billions of light years away, also a vacuum with a CNP constant of -27to the 3rd may open a force to siphon or black hole. When the nova explodes is creates a weakness in the actual pressure state of the surrounding environments allowing another universe of a greater negative pressure constant to open a black hole.

 

[Jio Moonshadow]

To everyone who puts there greatists efforts into physics. Let's make this the year physics 1905-2005-.

Anthony Giguere 1979

 

[Fredrick]

A photo of nothing

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictures/images/pictures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."

I could not ask for a better image. It does not mean absolute evidence, but it is nice to deliver a picture next to the words.

 

[reilly]

Can nothing exist? Seems to me to be a question quite similar to. "How high is up?" Or, What's the sound of one hand clapping?" Our language allows us to form such questions without violating the rules of syntax, structure and so forth, but without any guarantee of an answer. At the risk of overstretching, I think these questions are the sorts, in layman's terms, that Godel told us about. Who knows what the answers are? Who can tell?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Fredrick]

There are various forms of nothing. The zeroes before the 9 are different from the zeroes after the 9 as in 00900. The importancce of nothing in your wallet differs depending on how much money you have left in your account: if there is a lot, you just go to the ATM and get more cash; if there isn't much, nothing in your wallet may indicate a personal financial crisis.
The individual parts are important in science, but the cohesive overall platform(s) are important as well. Nothing is not an independent individual part, but the overall platform seems to need a 'nothing.'

Apologies in advance for the remark but Godel is nothing but a quick answer to not having to deal with this nothing.

 

[Fredrick]

Momentary nothing

I read it again in the New York Times science section this last week, that during the collision at BNL of two gold nuclei a momentary nothing - a fraction of a second - occurred before materialization of the new plasma became visible.