Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

To be is to be perceived

  1. Jan 25, 2005 #1
    To be is to be perceived.

    “nothing from nothing leaves nothing”--- Billy Preston

    I know there has been a lot of inquiry to the subject of “nothing” but I would like to bring it up again. The thought of “nothing” has driven some philosophers mad. Something and nothing cannot coexist so if nothing does exist it must exist in some type of parallel universe. If parallel universes do exist, indeed it must include a universe of “nothing”. Even the word “nothingness” implies that nothing is composed of something. Most of us know that space is composed of “something”, that being the quantum foam or some other manifestation of energy. I think the anthropic principal has a lot to say about the subject of nothing.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 26, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is a conceptual mistake. "Nothing" means "not anything." If X is composed of something, then by definition, X is something. 'Nothing' cannot be substituted for X here, or else we arrive at a contradiction: nothing is something.

    A quick search will show any number of threads on PF dealing with this fundamental confusion about the word 'nothing' in endless circles. It may be of interest to you to read these threads, but there does not seem to be much to be gained by adding to them.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook