What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[PRyckman]

what's the opposite of having an object?

 

[Stevo]

what's the opposite of having an object?

Well that's an interesting question...

The obvious answer is "Not having an object".

But then we are just talking about the negation of a proposition, and why should we claim that one proposition refers while its negation doesn't?

An answer may be that it's a matter of perspective, or a matter of defining our domain, and that there is no maximal domain. For if there were, then we could construct a proposition with the universal quantifier, and the negation of that proposition would fail to refer to any object. But the above question would again apply.

What is the ontological significance of the negation?

I'm going to head off, but I'll say this: I'm really just playing devils advocate. I prefer having a "robust sense of reality" (as Russell said). But it's worthwhile pointing out that constructing a sensible theory of propositions which claims that nothing is not an object is not so obvious or easy. Conversely, claiming nothing is an object can perhaps be implemented in a sensible theory of propositions.

 

[PRyckman]

I hear you there, But I really think it just stops at not having an object.

 

[Messiah]

For clarity, it is important to note the connotation (there are two) about which you are commenting.

Nothing - in the abstract - has no definition. It is a fiction. It doesn't exist.
Nothing - the value of Ø - is the null value. It is defined. It does exist.

 

[Atrius]

I may be crossing subjects, but isn't there no such thing as "nothing" because where there was belived to be "nothing" there was dark matter. If i am wrong, i believe that there is nothing that can be called "nothing". it just does not exist to our minds. Its just like trying to think up a flat object that is perfectly flat when you look at it from all angles, even when you go around.

 

[zeta101]

not sure if this is actually true, its just my interpretation of things and what i believe is true. Have you every heard people try and be clever and say "if the universe is everything and its expanding, then what is it expanding into?"

Ive never had a problem with this because the way i see it is that a vacuum in space is not nothing, even if you disregard particles that can pop in and out of existence for minute amounts of time, i still think there is "something" to a vacuum. Space itself is something, or should i say space-time...i mean doesn't space-time bend due to the effects of mass and energy?! so surely "empty" space or a vacuum has to be something.

The true nothingness is what exists outside of the universe...it is void not only of matter and energy but of dimension and time...for this reason you can say how big the nothingness is outside the universe, you can't say it extends for an infinite distance, because "distance" has no meaning without space-time...the same goes for time...you can't say that this viod has always exisisted, ie before big bang, and you can't say it will continue to exist forever, ie after big crunch or whatever...because time has no meaning in the void.

I think that matter and energy are closely connected to space-time, so i don't think matter or energy could even exist outside of our universe and in the void without a space-time canvas to paint them onto.

hmmm, just spent 10 minutes talking about nothing :D

 

[sol2]

Discrete Objects are Artifacts

I may be crossing subjects, but isn't there no such thing as "nothing" because where there was belived to be "nothing" there was dark matter. If i am wrong, i believe that there is nothing that can be called "nothing". it just does not exist to our minds. Its just like trying to think up a flat object that is perfectly flat when you look at it from all angles, even when you go around.

The understanding of Dark matter as a measure is good choice again as I have reiterated earlier. Its a empirical question, of what can exist and from where it began.

If one assumes such a position then in this context the primordial basis of the universe comes into question. It's strength and weakness in a energy detrmination?

Also, might we point to the brain's matter and and call it a souls artifact, when it is capable of mind?

This would run in contradiction to evolution? Might we see then where dimensional significance could have been entangled in these matters How is it mind could direct?

It would raise the question of what the mind may gather from the pool of ideas and project them into reality? Some would say then that ideas come from nothing, or they gather in neural connection and spark recognition?

If this were true then, what would the cosmological significance of the mind be when one looks at Kravtsov computer models as string models and neural correlates?

http://mind-brain.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4041

Just thought I would add it for consideration.

 

[zeta101]

btw to those that are trying to mathematically describe nothingness, if you are talking about the absense of an object on the sapce-time "canvas" then i suppose you can use zero. But In the void of nothingness you can't quantify anything, so i don't think you can use mathematics or numbers to describe it

 

[sol2]

When is a Pipe a Pipe?

btw to those that are trying to mathematically describe nothingness, if you are talking about the absense of an object on the sapce-time "canvas" then i suppose you can use zero. But In the void of nothingness you can't quantify anything, so i don't think you can use mathematics or numbers to describe it

Again I would draw your attention to this link for consideration

Andrey Kravtsov

Zeta101 said,"The true nothingness is what exists outside of the universe...it is void not only of matter and energy but of dimension and time...for this reason you can say how big the nothingness is outside the universe, you can't say it extends for an infinite distance, because "distance" has no meaning without space-time...the same goes for time...you can't say that this viod has always exisisted, ie before big bang, and you can't say it will continue to exist forever, ie after big crunch or whatever...because time has no meaning in the void."

There cannot be no outside the universe. The computer model describes for us an artifact of those higher dimensions? Do you see?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?13@63.hEg8bi18Uyt.0@.1dde6c2f/19

 

[zeta101]

i don't really understand what your trying to say, but you say there cannot be an "outside" of the universe...and i agree, but my post is still valid...my post does not say there is an outside of the universe, it says the opposite! that's there is nothing. That is how i have chosen to define nothingness

 

[sol2]

That is how i have chosen to define nothingness

ok:)

I just gave you a map:)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=20932

 

[zeta101]

Hi, i read the post in that thread but i don't really follow and understand the relevance here. Can you summerise and explain please?

 

[sol2]

Hi, i read the post in that thread but i don't really follow and understand the relevance here. Can you summerise and explain please?

If its going to be a emprical question, would this not add more value to this conversation on nothing? Its seems to be a belaboured point at this stage that if we do not accept something, we'll always continue with nothing:)

the question arises about what can exist and what cannot. One has to take a stand. There is always something

 

[mee]

Nothing

Maybe it is whatever nature abhorrs.

 

[Moonrat]

In the realm of concepts and ideas, all can have existence in a subjective enviroment, like dreams or myths, beliefs, and what not.

All though these do not exist as objects outside of us, they very much heavily influence HOW we percieve objects outside of us...

Such is the puzzle of the quantum realm, does a photon exists as a particle or a wave, or is that how it appears to us when we look for it?

Are we only looking out our own contructs or the thing itself..

or..BOTH!

The subjective realm has an inseperable effect on the objective realm...

Like if someone asks 'Hey, what did that person want on the phone?"
and we reply 'Oh..NOTHING, it was just a salesmen"

so something that is truly non-existant would have no representation in both subjective and objective enviroments, other than a idea of 'non-existant'.


However, when certain physicists claim that the universe sprang from 'nothingness' this is where we run into problems, for nothingness here is undefinable mystery, and is a thing that is no-thing, not a non-existant, but an existent 'no-thing'

a vacuum is not a 'non-exsitant' but a 'non-directional' brining the 'uni-directional' into it, thus, Nature abhors a vaccume.

heady concepts, but the distinction is important to make.

thanks Pryckman, and good luck with your work, I will read more about soon

Moonrat

 

[Messiah]

i don't really understand what your trying to say, but you say there cannot be an "outside" of the universe...and i agree, but my post is still valid...my post does not say there is an outside of the universe, it says the opposite! that's there is nothing. That is how i have chosen to define nothingness

Applause ! !

Universe = all which exists
If it ain't here, it ain't.

 

[pelastration]

what's the opposite of having an object?

... a virtual object?

 

[Moonrat]

LOL

this discussion sure is proof that something can come out of nothing!

I still like 'mystery' as 'nothing' as in the universal nothing.

existance exists! it exists as mystery, true, and false, completely dependent upon the subject (me and you) to view the 'object'

I understand prychman when he says nothing is just nothing and it needs no thought..let's focus on something! that which we do know! (mystery) we know there is mystery and mystery is a constant in both the quantum and universal realm.

is the quauntum realm the realm of the subjective, and universal the objective, I wonder? I can't help but notice the similarities in paradox

Moonrat

 

[sol2]

Dirac's Matrices

... a virtual object?

I would need some help here.

The dynamics and pathways Feynman toy models, had to arise out of Dirac matrices?

What then would be the value of { i }if it was a negative response. So we drum up supersymetrical particles to show us the virtual objects

 

[n0n]

Ok, you all confuse me, allot. You seem to agree that 'nothing' cannot exist as a whole because then something couldn't exist, but I think your missing a point to think about. What is the opposite of nothing? You’d probably say something, but what is that. Mathematically nothing is 0, and then mathematically what is something? It cannot be just 1 or just 2 or 3 because that cannot define the something we have, at all. Maybe something is chaos? But that something is forever changing, and that cannot produce an order simple enough for something to exist either. And I guess I won’t post that web address any more, because well you can’t see the vision of what it produces, I wrote a program that does exactly what that site describes, and string theory, or at least what I’ve read of string theory is honestly explained. I cannot comprehend the pathways it takes, but who gives a whatever, the only thing I like about it is that everyone should be able to comprehend it. What would science give, 10 page equations that no one could ever comprehend, how pointless existence would be for us. So I’ll just stick with my idea, because hay, you might think its all incomprehensible numbers, but that’s the point, not to understand every aspect of existence, just the concept of it. Me and my dumb typed mind. And if you want to find the site just look for the only other post by me. Good luck on your quest for oblivion.

 

[sol2]

Progressing and Moving Forward Takes Great Patience and Insight:)

Maybe something is chaos? But that something is forever changing, and that cannot produce an order simple enough for something to exist either.

Assume then, that the spacetime fabric is a O point consideration (flat) and that from it, there are two ways of the universe to unfold. If we were to understand these dynamics of movement, how shall you describe them in your numbers?

 

[n0n]

I don’t think a single 0 point can exist for it is "a" which means 1. I think the best way to think of it is infinite 0 points which would be the equivalent to no point or complete void. Which should mean every place a 0 point had a potential to be, could be infinitely expanded upon by an infinite amount of other potential 0 points, even unto the initial potential of the 0 point (so pretty much if a point of 0 existed it would only be because of its own infinite group of 0 potential points). Space is directionless inertia right? I think this is a pretty good description of it. But see this makes space chaotic, which fits perfectly in a duality scheme, 0 order and infinite complexity. Say these expanses exist, and expand in a single instant at any point and at any angle in dimensionality, to any other point at any angle in dimensionality. The angle could totally be equivalent to a number, and there is nothing that says a group of expansions at angles couldn’t collide into another group of expansions at angles, or even unto its own group of expansions at angles. And that looks everything like “my numbers”. Yea this is awesome, a complete realization typed, me and my dumb mind. But is this any were close to a good realization though? Are their concepts of nothing I’m missing? Does this unify a fundamental source for something to be? I don’t know, all I know is what I observe and what makes sense to me from that, else I think I’m missing a light switch or something, what?

 

[sol2]

Space is directionless inertia right? I think this is a pretty good description of it. But see this makes space chaotic, which fits perfectly in a duality scheme, 0 order and infinite complexity. Say these expanses exist, and expand in a single instant at any point and at any angle in dimensionality, to any other point at any angle in dimensionality. The angle could totally be equivalent to a number, and there is nothing that says a group of expansions at angles couldn’t collide into another group of expansions at angles, or even unto its own group of expansions at angles. And that looks everything like “my numbers”. Yea this is awesome, a complete realization typed, me and my dumb mind. But is this any were close to a good realization though? Are their concepts of nothing I’m missing? Does this unify a fundamental source for something to be? I don’t know, all I know is what I observe and what makes sense to me from that, else I think I’m missing a light switch or something, what?

You recognized the state of inertia as a state between? From this, "time is a factor that is allowable in the aspects of rotation, that moves to the nature of the future and past? How would we see this?

Someone can correct here.

I think it is of great value once you move to hyperdimensional understanding about the nature of such plasmatic features we understand this movement?

As a issue in supergravity and supermetric points, how did this graduate from metric point considerations arise? There is a mathematical basis to it. Yet, we are describing nature:)

 

[n0n]

From this, "time is a factor that is allowable in the aspects of rotation, that moves to the nature of the future and past? How would we see this?

Yes time is a factor but not at the level I'm talking about. Science say's it cannot make any judgments about pre big bang for time is a measure of movement compared to 'something', not 'nothing'. It’s the moment right before time is a factor, how time flows and unfolds I think could be completely depending on how the instant defines it. Maybe, I don’t know I haven’t gotten that far yet; I’m still working on the expanding of instances.

As for super gravity, and super metric points, correct me here, are definitions after the 0 instant and can be defined as almost anything in a multi-verse, in the moments after a big bang. If these are formations a moment after the initial 0 instant then each would be defined independently in its own universe at hand, and since existence is probably a multi-verse, defining these becomes a process of testing and comparing, just like any other scientific process. Like Hyper-dimensional processes, this is why I need pictures of my stuff (I’ll get them put up shortly); this is what honestly convinced me that a continuum of divisional existence exists. See this is were all the confusion of my ideals, and others ideals collide, it’s pretty simple but I can only described it vaguely without visual confirmation to know you understand what I’m trying to portray(my bad). My feeble mind can’t explain it as easily as actually seeing of the process. I could use hefty equations, but to actually see what it means is 1000 words more then a small equation the average human isn’t going to sit down and figure out. Sorry, I shouldn't have said some of the stuff about equations, I should be scolded. But I got a program fallowing a single path of recipicals, compiled and everything. It’s all dos and displayed in a 3d state, and looks weird, the form keeps changing, yet stays connected so it either stays in one place or expands. I also have a 2d version and thoughts out comes are either a weird looking square, inverted square, or fallow a path away from the origin. If you want to take a look, I’ll through together a help file or something, and attach it or something. Sorry again.

 

[PRyckman]

i still don't see why all the hub bub on this subject nothing is nothing, nothing isn't dark matter, dark matter is dark matter. nothing is nothing, nothing is absence of something, nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero and anything else is non zero.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Perfectly reasonable.

 

[Erck]

nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero...

These two statements contradict each other... don't they?

 

[Edwin]

Existance: to be or not to be, that is the question.

I guess that depends on whether you consider Existance as an operator, or as an element of some set.

If you consider existence as being an element of some set, then consider the following line of reasoning:

Let A be the set of all things that exist.

Let B be the set of all things that do not exist.

"a" exists and thus is an element of the set A.

"b" does not exist, and thus is an element of B.

Thus B exists and is an element of A.

So, A is the set of all things that exist, and B is the set of all things that do not exist. If B is an empty set, then an emtpy set of non-existance exists, and thus non-existance {B} is an element of the set existence {A}.

So non-existance is a sub-set of existence.


If existence is an operator, then it is a little different. It is no longer a class of objects, but a process, or action, like addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.


There is a set of symbols in logic that are used to describe two types of existence operators, a Universal operator, and an Existance operator. The Existance operator is described by a backwards E, and the Universal operator is described by an up-side down A. The upside down operator is denoted to give a set of objects as a universal truth. The existence operator would describe an absolute truth that extends beyond a given universe, or global set. Just my take on it, I could be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Edwin

 

[sol2]

to e or not to e

Hello Edwin,

Thanks for presenting the logic. I am new to this, but understand its importance.

"b" does not exist, and thus is an element of B.

Can a double negative be allowed? Does this make sense? This would destroy the logic?

If existence is an operator, then it is a little different. It is no longer a class of objects, but a process, or action, like addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.

If we continued with that logic then this would be supported from what you are demonstrating? A-b=?

I waited to see how some woud post and from such logic. I looked at this http://superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages16/65.html for consideration.

The basic structure of this process from a philosophical point of view could govern how Penrose saw such discriptions as you have shown as the basis of discussion.

Would it be accurate to say all philosophical discusssions must be raised from the basis of the logic? It does not shine on any favorites from a personal point of view , but deals directly with the ignorance, if such a stance is not taken?

You could have a Messianic personality, and be extremely good in math, and if your logic is sound, there can be no repercussions as long as the statements that are supplied are accurate, and speak from the basis of that logic. Why the battle lines in the new era of Solvay can't be ignored when taking sides, but can be in regards to the math:)

Any new math will arise from that discussion?

 

[PRyckman]

These two statements contradict each other... don't they?

no they don't. Zero is a term we made to describe nothing, if you are counting apples you have zero apples.

I guess that depends on whether you consider Existance as an operator, or as an element of some set.

If you consider existence as being an element of some set, then consider the following line of reasoning:

Let A be the set of all things that exist.

Let B be the set of all things that do not exist.

"a" exists and thus is an element of the set A.

"b" does not exist, and thus is an element of B.

Thus B exists and is an element of A.

No where in that shows that B exists and is an element of A.

If you are saying that b is absolutely nothing and a is what you are saying is nothing, both are equal to zero so it doesn't matter. a=0,B=0,Z=0,Q=0,=0, all the same

 

[Messiah]

i still don't see why all the hub bub on this subject nothing is nothing, nothing isn't dark matter, dark matter is dark matter. nothing is nothing, nothing is absence of something, nothing doesn't even exist. nothing is zero and anything else is non zero.

Logic (and discussion) require definition. There are 2 connotations of nothing

1) that which does not exist (no definition)
2) the value Ø (defined)

That value can be qualitative, quantitative or positional (the three criteria of Logic)

Much of this discussion arises from the blurring of the distinction between the two connotations.

 

[sol2]

You could have a Messianic personality, and be extremely good in math, and if your logic is sound, there can be no repercussions as long as the statements that are supplied are accurate, and speak from the basis of that logic.

Why the battle lines in the new era of Solvay can't be ignored when taking sides, but can be, in recognition of the math:)

And further...one soon recogizes the basis of that logic is called for inthe new era of discussion and must be based on what is presented here?

Parity for spinning particles depends on their handedness, which should be described in the tables. C-parity is just based on electric charges; +1 for positive charges and -1 for negative charges and 0 for neutral particles.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201986&postcount=4

You are forced to deal with "something," once the logic is accepted, and is not tainted with lack of respect for philosophical discussion? Dislike all you like, but the logic cannot be ignored:)

This wouold not reflect on those who are endeavoring to question the relevance of the reality we deal with. Those actions ( lack of respect ) are governed by other things?

 

[n0n]

But logic is not a material thing, just like ‘nothing’ is not a material thing. You can define all of logic into one statement that is equivalent to defining all of nothing into one statement, logic = true or 1, nothing = false or 0. It is or it is not, but a process between the 2 has to always be. Why else would dualities exist on almost every possible level? Which also logically means a blend occurs some were in some way we don’t usually think about. I will attach that program now, read the txt file first. I was thinking; how would anyone know if I’m the only one going down this path (probably in a ball of fire)? Oh well, this is just a 2nd hobby. And who cares what I think, what do you think? I ask ‘possible, or not possible?’ What process would cause a universe to define itself, not us defining the universe? And nothing, still I don’t know what it truly is; I just wanted some most likely perception of it. If any of you got other perceptions of this magnitude please say them, cause for now, what are we talking about?

 

[Erck]

Anything that can be "perceived" is a material thing... isn't it? No matter how subtle it seems to be. Logic, ideas, feelings, thoughts, smells etc.

 

[sol2]

Logicism

Logicism holds that logic is the proper foundation of mathematics, and that all mathematical statements are necessary logical truths. For instance, the statement "If Aristotle is a human, and every human is mortal, then Aristotle is mortal" is a necessary logical truth. To the logicist, all mathematical statements are precisely of the same type; ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/philosophy_of_mathematics

Seems they can build up from a whole lot of nothing:)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=202470&postcount=41

 

[n0n]

But their not material things, I don’t think at least. Is their anyone instant were all logical concepts are combined or combining? Presumably that aspect is chaos, in some movies, books, and if you just think about it. But, what about that whole "god" thing, if "god" is complete logic (understanding), then god should be chaos; through which nothing can define. Then logically what can chaos define, or can chaos define anything other then the logic involved? So, maybe chaos cannot be compared to anything and still be logical. Do I see a true, false duality within a single concept, logically chaos can make sense as a process of being chaos, but to compare that chaos to anything is illogical for the logic is self-contained and might be the definition of nothing (looking at it in the most ignorantly obvious way). And so if they are 2 classes of a concept 'chaos = true and false' and 'nothing = true and false’, then is their any other thing that can also fit into a true and false definition other then human relations?

 

[sol2]

Let's take the early universe for instance. There is a time line of events. One of these events on that timeline reveal a very chaotic time. A time, where it is believed that many things were once, one.

In today's world this theory of everything is trying to combine the gravity into the undertsnding of this issue to make the standard model complete.

Now if we look to that early universe and in those first three minutes, what was the nature of reality then? Was such a plasmatic universe "real," that we could have spoken about supersymmetric points of consideration? How did it begin? Or was there always a universe, that was cyclical in nature, that such events were always a state of becoming? Universes dying and new ones born.

This then had to become encapsulate

The point is the consistancy of the first three minutes had to have a geometrical recognition right from the word go. Here we have talked about the realization of what is born into reality

 

[Dayle Record]

Nothing is what exists before everything else becomes attracted to it. Nothing is the absolute attractor.

 

[Erck]

I wish I was attracted to nothing... my life would be a lot more simple.

I'm attracted to almost everything... but I end up with nothing.

 

[Dayle Record]

You win. Nothing is going to bring you everything. Then you have to turn down everything, in order to have more nothing.

 

[sol2]

Even the Dalai Lama practises logic ( more said here later and resource link supplied then), and we have to wonder about attachments?

What do we own, and the philosophical discussion has gone and taken a turn here?

Oh I am not a Buddhist, I just accept the logic:)

But sure if we want to extend this logic into generalize concepts, then you have to remember the basis from which we are speaking?

When is a Pipe a Pipe?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@253.cqKeb8LaY4i.0@.1dde6c2f/19

"Nothing" is substantial if it remains in nothing? You killed it before it even started. What Lies beneath?

 

[Erck]

Dayle...Well said.

The substance of your comment is substantial.

 

[Erck]

Logic is slightly more fundamental than math or physics... if I'm not mistaken.

And... there's more to semantics than might meet the eye.

 

[sol2]

Is Math natural or created?

From what pool do we draw such ideas, that such ideas could exist? This statement has to be philospohically defined. If not in logic then where?

 

[Erck]

Will existence allow us to define itself?

And if so... do we have to be outside of existence in order to do it?

And if so... how do we do that?

 

[n0n]

Will existence allow us to define itself?

Can you define you, not the physical part but your mind defining thought? Could this be considered art? Listen to some music, it's a creation all its own, both logical and random. Or even drawings, no 2 paintings are ever alike, and yet can have the same idea behind it. Is this the very essence of a potential single point or ideal everything and nothing consumes (both truth and false)?

Is Math natural or created?

Tell me what in the universe is not natural and let it be a comparision of void.

You are forced to deal with "something," once the logic is accepted, and is not tainted with lack of respect for philosophical discussion? Dislike all you like, but the logic cannot be ignored:)

I agree completely with this sol2. So nothing must also be logical, and logical must also be nothing. And what are they then?

 

[young e.]

" N O T H I N G "! for me is the collapsing the fundamental block of the universe- the proton. In which this is the core of every hydrogen atom, which runs out in about 10^32 years. With about that halflife, protons( and all the complicated nuclie containing protons) will "decay", releasing much energy as they are transformed into lighter particles. And so if all protons will gone the UNIVERSE will be empty of all complex matter, there will be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no organisms, no atoms, no nuclie...the end of everything " that is nothing"!

 

[young e.]

The end of everything is what i meant for "nothing"

" N O T H I N G "! for me is the collapsing the fundamental block of the universe- the proton. In which this is the core of every hydrogen atom, which runs out in about 10^32 years. With about that halflife, protons( and all the complicated nuclie containing protons) will "decay", releasing much energy as they are transformed into lighter particles. And so if all protons will gone the UNIVERSE will be empty of all complex matter, there will be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no organisms, no atoms, no nuclie...the end of everything " that is nothing"!

 

[PRyckman]

Logic (and discussion) require definition. There are 2 connotations of nothing

1) that which does not exist (no definition)
2) the value Ø (defined)

Isn't that what I said? 2 is non zero right?

 

[PRyckman]

i agree with you young. I also believe one day all matter will decay into discreet particles, and the universe will cease to exist.