Question - is it impossible for nothing to exist?

[orgmark]

question-

Is it impossible for 'nothing' to exist?
or can a point in space merely approach
this limit?
in other words be so close to zero as to
effectively appear as such?

 

[Tigron-X]

It's not comprehendable if it was possible because you're referring to non-existence. The word itself is a paradox. The only reason it makes sense is because of context. If you said, "Nothing exists." You're referring to current existence as it is known, or imagined, and it reaching a balance, that if valued, would assume the sum of zero. However, the definition for zero is that it is a holding place for a defined value, usually numerical. Thus, 0=1.

It's all relative.

 

[orgmark]

what happened to that which did not
exist before the universe?

 

[orgmark]

please excuse my fragmented thoughts on this topic..

if 'nothing' does in fact exist, would it not lack dimension?
length, width, and height would have no meaning..
the known universe could easily fit within such a
conceptual oddity.

 

[Tigron-X]

By using your own example:

It can not exist because it would not lack dimensions due to the fact that something can fit inside it; something that you decided to label as the known universe.

All you did was take a relative measurement of length, width, and height in your imagination and replace it with a void. A void is still something.

 

[trancefishy]

a void is only something when compared to something.
that sounds incredibly cryptic and has no basis in meaning.
this reminds me of godel's theorem, or of something said that led to godel's theorem coming about. I forget who said this "it occurred to me that sometimes sets are are a member of themselves, and sometimes they are not. the set of all teaspoons, for example, is not a teaspoon, and is not a member of that set. the set of all things that are not teaspoons, is a member of itself".

A thought of mine regarding the universe, and it's habit to expand. As it expands, the distance between objects increases, and the ratio of matter to space gets smaller. this approaches a density of zero. the limit as "time approaches infinity" is zero. you cannot witness this, obviously, since there is no end of time. also, the universe at that point would be very sparse in terms of energy. esentially, a void with no detectable motion or matter.
eerie.

perhaps it was this scenario (the universe approaching and realizing the aforementioned limit (is there a better terminology, here?)), that spawned a contradiction which in turn borne the current universe.


One more thing I would like to add:
Let A be the mind**** induced by thinking about the size of the universe, and beyond, or just "positive" infinity in general.
Let B be the mind**** induced by thinking about nothing existing. ever, anywhere. nothing.

I conjecture that B is strictly greater than A.

 

[Pmarty]

Orgmark,
I think you are trying to make the infinite (nothing) finite. No*thing can exist, and does exist, just not as a thing. It is no*thing. The problem is our toughts are necessarily finite; objects of thinking (thoughts) are "things". It's how our brain & mind work.

 

[JPD]

To add (something or nothing), is it possible for something to not exist?

 

[Philocrat]

question-

Is it impossible for 'nothing' to exist?
or can a point in space merely approach
this limit?
in other words be so close to zero as to
effectively appear as such?

Anything can depart 'THE REALM OF SENSIBILITY' into any size it may so desire, but as I have made it clear everywhere in this PF forum and elsewhre, it can NEVER reduce to absolute nothingness, since there has never been any NATURAL or CAUSAL RELATIONS existing between 'SOMETHING' and 'NOTHINGNESS'. Both may very well exist, but one has always been without the other. Since this has always been so, none can give rise to nor decline to the other.

 

[Tigron-X]

Well, if infinity exists (which is the most logical inclination), then nothing cannot exist, however something can be assigned to zero which, by the way, only defines the boundries of at least two different parameters intersecting at a signle point. Thus, all that is changed is the given plane and the value of said plane due to one's relative position that is portrayed by one's perspective.

 

[juju]

Hi,

You can perceive absolute nothingness, but then both you and the nothingness exist, so something still is.

One step further and you do not exist but the nothingness then cannot be perceived.

juju

 

[theriddler876]

something can always be divided into smaller peieces
something can not exsist only in the physical world, very much like a time machine exsits a an Idea, but not a thing. so anything can exsist as ideas, and the very second you think of something that does not exsist, you just created it (the idea of it) by thinking about it

 

[sd01g]

Seems to me that 'nothingness' in an EMPIRICAL sense is that which one does not perceive: 'something' produces sensory input-'nothing' produces no sensory input. Nothingness in a RATIONAL sense (that which exist as thought) exists as the notion 'that which is opposite to something.' Nothingness as an idea or concept is something (a thought) but the essence of 'nothingness'- the content of the thought-exists as the absence of 'somethingness'.

 

[Mumeishi]

what happened to that which did not
exist before the universe?

It's NOT still here
It's NOT still not here
It's NOT both of the above
It's NOT none of the above

 

[elas]

If a state of infinite and absolute nothing ever existed there would be no cause for change and 'something ' would not exist, or come into existence.
It is the fact that 'nothing' has force and anti-force that is the cause of existence.
Given that the force is the force of nothing, then anti-force must be the force of something or to put it another way, every force must have a carrier and the carrier is 'something'. That 'something' is also the anti-force; the cause of the law that states for every force there must be an equal and opposing force.
In a nutshell then, the minimum state of infinity consists of both nothing and something. This is born out by the Standard Model which predicts a minimum energy level for the void and energy requires the presence of 'something'.
What you call that 'something' (energy, mass, wave or light) depends on what form or aspect of 'something' you wish to portray.

 

[Philocrat]

question-

Is it impossible for 'nothing' to exist?
or can a point in space merely approach
this limit?
in other words be so close to zero as to
effectively appear as such?

I believe that it doesn't exist. Even if there is 'nothing', my long-held view is that it has no causal relation with 'something', for it can neither give rise to something nor any something declining into it. Something and nothing cannot give rise to each other, even if they both exist! I have seen someone argued in this forum that if 'nothing' exists, then it has to be construed as something. Well, this is not logically ruled out either. If 'nothing' is something, then we are dealing with one thing and not two. We are dealing with one thing with two names.

 

[xy]

all this talk about nothing what a waste of somthing!

 

[sd01g]

nothing-nothing

A hypothetical observer watching the big bang 'create the beginning of the universe' might conclude from sensory input that the big bang came from NOTHING because he/she/it (hsi) would 'see' it appear from nothing.

However, when the observer (who understood that the concept of SOMETHING and NOTHING were different) thought about it, hsi might think that, maybe, the big bang event resulted from something too small for hsi to perceive.

Hsi would then have to decide: Did the big bang come from 'nothing- nothing 'or from 'something-nothing'-that which was the result of sensory perception being inadequate to perceive the very small thing (something) that was actually there which caused the big bang?

Hsi,being a rational entity, would probably conclude that since nothing-nothing could contain nothing that could cause a big bang, the big bang came from 'something-nothing' which could contain something (although too small to perceive) which could produce a big bang.

What do you think? Something from nothing-nothing or something-nothing?

 

[elas]

I believe that it doesn't exist. Even if there is 'nothing', my long-held view is that it has no causal relation with 'something', for it can neither give rise to something nor any something declining into it.

Would you agree that if infinity consisted of absolute nothing, then it would have a vacuum force? If so, it can be argued that vacuum force is the cause of creation, therefore it is possible to get something from nothing. But we cannot repeat this experimentally because we cannot create a volume of absolute nothing; all that can be proved experimentally is that we cannot add or take away from what already exists (conservation of energy). That would mean that the vacuum force is the supreme controller of the quantity of 'something' throughout infinity.
I mean that in a scientific sense and in no way do I mean in a religous sense.

 

[Fredrick]

A scientific nothing

When you are the child of divorced parents, the mark right behind the marriage status of your parents equals that of nothing.

Without naming anyone in particular (though I would like to name Mumeishi's post for the wonderful graphic right next to it) I read in most posts that we all have a somewhat clear idea what nothing is all about. I think the confusion mainly occurs due to the ability to not have to clearly state what it is we are talking about. So I want to give some examples that deliver almost touchable nothings.

Zeroes in the binary language are quite essential to the language. If it wasn't for the zeroes there would hardly be anything legible, because all words would be comprised of ones; only the length of the words would differ.

If a marriage is annulled it means that as far as both parties are concerned nothing really happened.

Breaks in music are not essential, but they are fundamental to music. A break at the right time and the right place can make or break the tune. And while we are at it, a music hall is not just built to keep those other annoying noises out, it also helps with the perfect beginning to every good piece of music: silence.

A scientific nothing is a nothing that we can touch without touching it. A clean petri-dish is a first requirement to have any biological experiment done otherwise the experiment is tainted. Science requires nothing because one of its vital sets - the ability to theorize - occurs in a scientific empty space that nevertheless helps determine a lot of what you and I have learned about science. True, facts can be a substantial part of theories, but theories in themselves are not facts. As such they are scientific nothings. But still important, wouldn't you agree?

Let's admit it, our universe would not be the same if it wasn't for nothing. So, why not come up with examples where you can see a whole lot of nothing!

My choice where nothing first started to occur? Not before, but during/at/right before the birth of our universe.

------------------------------------------------------
A unified theory has as a requirement that nothing is unimportant. A fundamental nothing would most certainly spoil the fun. http://www.pentapublishing.com Read about the mathematical evidence that gives a fundamental nothing the heads-up.

------------------------------------------------------
Poll http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96

 

[theriddler876]

what are you talking about, if you get a divorce it still happened, and silence in the music isn't really silence, it's just too low of a decibel level to be precieved, by your logic air would be made of nothing, which we know isn't true... hmnn I think this argument is best left to seinfeld.

 

[Fredrick]

Not nothing

what are you talking about, if you get a divorce it still happened, and silence in the music isn't really silence, it's just too low of a decibel level to be precieved, by your logic air would be made of nothing, which we know isn't true... hmnn I think this argument is best left to seinfeld.

Some people react by not saying anything. Of course that is not nothing; it is still a reaction. But on the level of uttering a word, one can only mark the box right next to nothing.

When listening to music a break may deliver excitement to the tune, but right next to 'played notes' one has to mark the box of 'nothing' or 'silence' for the whole duration of the break.

When divorced you can say that it is a state based on the past, but in the present one has to mark the box right next to no for the question of currently married (unless remarried).

In the binary language one can say that the zero is something, but when all existing zeroes are placed in a single group they are still nothing more than a single zero. That would not be possible when doing the same with ones. Many 1111s are not identical to a single 1.

The air molecules are not identical to nothing, but they certainly contain a whole lot of space. The whole Earth when tightly comprised would - according to physicists - be similar in size to a cherry. Reality contains a whole lot of space.

I'd rather talk to Einstein about nothing, who said: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

 

[Philocrat]

I believe that it doesn't exist. Even if there is 'nothing', my long-held view is that it has no causal relation with 'something', for it can neither give rise to something nor any something declining into it.

Would you agree that if infinity consisted of absolute nothing, then it would have a vacuum force? If so, it can be argued that vacuum force is the cause of creation, therefore it is possible to get something from nothing. But we cannot repeat this experimentally because we cannot create a volume of absolute nothing; all that can be proved experimentally is that we cannot add or take away from what already exists (conservation of energy). That would mean that the vacuum force is the supreme controller of the quantity of 'something' throughout infinity.
I mean that in a scientific sense and in no way do I mean in a religous sense.

But that is a scientific way of looking at things. I do not see any benefit in trying to dispute that. But look at this systematic analysis by sd01g.

nothing-nothing

A hypothetical observer watching the big bang 'create the beginning of the universe' might conclude from sensory input that the big bang came from NOTHING because he/she/it (hsi) would 'see' it appear from nothing.

However, when the observer (who understood that the concept of SOMETHING and NOTHING were different) thought about it, hsi might think that, maybe, the big bang event resulted from something too small for hsi to perceive.

Hsi would then have to decide: Did the big bang come from 'nothing- nothing 'or from 'something-nothing'-that which was the result of sensory perception being inadequate to perceive the very small thing (something) that was actually there which caused the big bang?

Hsi,being a rational entity, would probably conclude that since nothing-nothing could contain nothing that could cause a big bang, the big bang came from 'something-nothing' which could contain something (although too small to perceive) which could produce a big bang.

What do you think? Something from nothing-nothing or something-nothing?

This neatly captures my own understanding of what the real problem is in our overall perception and understanding of the natural clarifying relation between NOTHING and SOMETHING. And my own answer to sd01g's question is 'Something-nothing'. It is our habit - for things tend to suddenly but mysteriously turn into NOTHING when they approach the point where we can no longer see them. And if you ask me, I would reply that this is a very bad intellectual habit!

 

[force5]

existence vs. non-existence

I believe that it doesn't exist. Even if there is 'nothing', my long-held view is that it has no causal relation with 'something', for it can neither give rise to something nor any something declining into it.

Would you agree that if infinity consisted of absolute nothing, then it would have a vacuum force? If so, it can be argued that vacuum force is the cause of creation, therefore it is possible to get something from nothing. But we cannot repeat this experimentally because we cannot create a volume of absolute nothing; all that can be proved experimentally is that we cannot add or take away from what already exists (conservation of energy). That would mean that the vacuum force is the supreme controller of the quantity of 'something' throughout infinity.
I mean that in a scientific sense and in no way do I mean in a religous sense.

IMHO, Elas has offered the best description of "nothing". There's "nothing" wrong with a scientific explanation. A true "nothing" is in fact a pure vacuum. Of course, a pure vacuum does not exist.

I don't think using a binary zero as an analogy makes much sense.

something = existence
nothing = non-existence

I think both terms are necessary since they are opposites.

My two cents...John A.

 

[Mentat]

Where the heck is my E.i.N.S. when I need it!?

Alright, all you PF veterans. Brace yourselves to read something you've already read much too many times before...

This debate started out badly, so it has only gotten worse since (no offense). The word "nothing" is defined as "not anything". That means that it is impossible to refer to something, by using the word "nothing". That means that to say "I'm talking about 'nothing'" is the same thing as saying "I'm not talking about anything". They are logically and semantically equivalent statements. Ergo, whenever someone has used the word "it" (or any other pronoun) to refer to "nothing", they have been misusing a pronoun, since they haven't be referring to anything.

So, before we get bogged down in a discussion about the nature of something (too late) let's be sure that there's actually something to discuss.

 

[Nereid]

Is a definition of 'nothing' tautological? an oxymoron? forever undecidable? meaningful only in a meta-structure? forever indeterminate? only something that philosophers could ever concern themselves with?

 

[Nereid]

Welcome Mentat! How come you didn't jump right in at post#2?

Where the heck is my E.i.N.S. when I need it!?

E.i.N.S.?

 

[Enos]

If it is small enough or massless then many will mistake it for nothing.

 

[Fredrick]

The nothing in common

Sometimes people have nothing in common. Is this a linguistic nothing, a physical nothing, an actual nothing or a nothing at all?

Any time several people, objects, forces, etc differ, they have at one point or another nothing in common. Though nothing remains absolutely nothing the fact of this nothing cannot be reduced to that of no importance. Without the variation/differentiation we would all be one. I differ from you (even though I have much in common with all who can read this) and therefore at one spot or another you and I have nothing in common.

The binary zero is a good example of nothing. Naturally nothing and a zero are not always one and the same (sometimes they are, like the zeroes in front of 000019, which is the same as 19, while 109 would be different if we deleted the zero). One could of course say that a zero is already an expression and therefore cannot be nothing, but the same goes for the word nothing.

With the binary system we can express anything. Clearly, the zero plays a more distinct role in the binary system than in the decimal system. In the decimal system it is truly easy to ignore zero. Did you know that the number zero was not even in use more than 2300 years ago? It took a real long time to discover zero.

Though the real matter of the binary system are the ones and not the zeroes, only the combination of both delivers its versatility. Both numbers differ distinctively. When taking the ones out we would be left with nothing but an empty expression, while when taking the zeroes out we are still left with various meanings, though this system based on ones only is not as versatile anymore (the ones would differ in length only).

The nothing delivers deep meaning to our lives when someone dies and leaves a big empty hole both inside of us and in the reality that surrounds us. There is nothing more you can say to that person (except inside yourself).

Nothing is the single most important feature in our universe; not because it is something, but because it is nothing that delivers extraordinary meaning to that what is something.

 

[Mentat]

Is a definition of 'nothing' tautological? an oxymoron? forever undecidable? meaningful only in a meta-structure? forever indeterminate? only something that philosophers could ever concern themselves with?

It's none of those things. "Nothing" is a word. It has a definition (meaning, significance, use, &c) as does any other word. A word is a tool, or (in more Wittgensteinian terms) a "piece" in certain language-games. A definition is supposed to explain the use of the tool, or the rules for which "moves" the "piece" is allowed to make. Well, the definition of nothing is semantically obvious: "no thing", or "not anything".

Therefore, "nothing" never has a use in reference; it only has a use when one doesn't wish to refer to anything at all.

Welcome Mentat! How come you didn't jump right in at post#2?

I wasn't back yet.

I've really missed this place, and may have to miss it again... We'll see.

E.i.N.S.?

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.

Well, g2g.

 

[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.