What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[Stevo]

Does existence come from nothing changing into something... or was something always there and it somehow created change?

Well, Parsons construction is analytic. I think, IIRC, that existence is a predicate that can be applied to an object (bound variable).

So to answer your question, I think it would be correct to say that something was always there. Whether it became predicated by existence due to itself only, or also by other factors, I'm not sure. It may depend entirely on the individual situation.

Incidentally, this obviously has interesting theological connotations.

 

[budha3]

no such thing

There is no such thing as nothing. If you look at hope. hope is something. the question is, does something have to first exist to have hope,? or is hope something that just is?

 

[budha3]

hope and love

In my personal experiences with God, I asked God that if his love is real, than why can't we describe it with human words. The answer that he gave me through insight was that "he told me when he showed me." It took me a while to understand. Then it hit me. The beginning of love is hope. you hope that the other person feels the same way that you do. The you come to know that they feel the same way that you do. It is then that you become one. God's love is the line that runs through hope, knowing, and oneness, and this line rus to infinity. This is the reason why there is no end to love. This is also why I believe that hope is the origin of everything

 

[sol2]

Mathematical derivative?

"Something from nothing," is nothingThis is logical?

"Something," from nothing, is "something". Is not logical?

Can someone define this mathematically?

 

[MythioS]

You can't get "something" from nothing.. that's how its logical.

Even in physics with quantum mechanics and things popping in an out of existence, the only reason (as far as i understand for a layman anyways) that that's happening is from an incomplete theory, not because things are actually vanishing in an out of reality.

if its zero to begin with you can't get a 1 out of it unless it came from somewhere else. in which case its not "from" nothing its from somewhere else.. and if its from somewhere else you also add into the picture that it couldn't have been a picture of just zero but now there's dimensions that need to locate the difference between point a and b 0 and where something came from in which case 0 is now "0"@xy & "1"@x2y2.

 

[Erck]

What if the something didn't come from nothing, and the nothing and the particle(?) interchange inside the something, while leaving the something unchanged?

 

[MythioS]

lol it doesn't matter.. and that's how this whole post is redundant. this is more of a english class thread then philosophy or physics cus were just getting cought up in 2 dif definitions of the same thing...

its like either its nothing or its something. this is a boolean (true or false) concept. You can't have both. In order for something to exist there must be variables that define its existence. For it to even be discussed you can say "Something=S" without even know what it is.

If its nothing then that's it. There is no.. something-nothing.

If your trying to say like "theres nothing there" well then there exists "no" solid body within a location but for something to be able to be there or not a co-ordinate system must be established.
So you no longer have an absence of a universe but atleast now a universe exist for us to define what its contents are.

So which one are we talkn about?

Anyone smell eggs?

 

[Erring Flatley]

Something from Nothing

To create something out of nothing, begin by mapping an x,y,z coordinant system on the nothingness. Then assign to each point in the space a value g,a,b,c where g is the gravitaional-strong scalar value, and a,b,c is the electromagnetic-weak vector value. Define a function such that each point (x,y,z,g,a,b,c) is defined as a function of all points dx,dy,dz from it, (that is all the points around it). Call this function the unified field function. You now have the universe out of nothing. [/color]

 

[Stevo]

You can't get "something" from nothing.. that's how its logical.

Even in physics with quantum mechanics and things popping in an out of existence, the only reason (as far as i understand for a layman anyways) that that's happening is from an incomplete theory, not because things are actually vanishing in an out of reality.

if its zero to begin with you can't get a 1 out of it unless it came from somewhere else. in which case its not "from" nothing its from somewhere else.. and if its from somewhere else you also add into the picture that it couldn't have been a picture of just zero but now there's dimensions that need to locate the difference between point a and b 0 and where something came from in which case 0 is now "0"@xy & "1"@x2y2.

lol it doesn't matter.. and that's how this whole post is redundant. this is more of a english class thread then philosophy or physics cus were just getting cought up in 2 dif definitions of the same thing...

its like either its nothing or its something. this is a boolean (true or false) concept. You can't have both. In order for something to exist there must be variables that define its existence. For it to even be discussed you can say "Something=S" without even know what it is.

If its nothing then that's it. There is no.. something-nothing.

If your trying to say like "theres nothing there" well then there exists "no" solid body within a location but for something to be able to be there or not a co-ordinate system must be established.
So you no longer have an absence of a universe but atleast now a universe exist for us to define what its contents are.

So which one are we talkn about?

Anyone smell eggs?

I strongly urge you to read Parsons "Nonexistent Objects". It will make you reconsider whether something can not exist but still "be".

If existence is a contingent property, then saying that "either there is nothing or there is something" is a confusion. (At least, in the sense I think you mean by something. I think that statement does still apply in a more general case if we allow for existence to be a contingent property.)

As far as your claim that in order to say whether something is somewhere or not we need to define a co-ordinate system, there are two problems. Firstly, co-ordinate systems do not necessarily have physical meaning. Secondly, you presuppose that space is a "container" - an entity which can be colocated which objects of a different kind - which it is not necessarily.

 

[Erck]

We don't know what "stuff" is and we don't know what "empty" is.

Both of them seem to be unreachable.

Maybe it's because they are.

Maybe at the root of the universe is another principle.

Not "is" or "is not"... but "change."

Without change there would be no universe... just one thing all the time.

A movie is change... a still picture is no change.

Ummmm... I smell popcorn!

 

[n0n]

We don't know what "stuff" is and we don't know what "empty" is.

What? couldn't stuff be related to chaos, infinite something and complexity. were as empty is 0, a place holder? and existence would be a middle ground someware? some empty space, and some stuff. Maybe their is an infinite nothing if we imagine zooming out till our universe were just a speck or not even thier, and that would be the closest to 0 we could get. and what if the infinite complexity is the chain reaction apon chain reaction in any matter based universe. Or something like that.

 

[sol2]

You can't get "something" from nothing.. that's how its logical.

Even in physics with quantum mechanics and things popping in an out of existence, the only reason (as far as i understand for a layman anyways) that that's happening is from an incomplete theory, not because things are actually vanishing in an out of reality.

if its zero to begin with you can't get a 1 out of it unless it came from somewhere else. in which case its not "from" nothing its from somewhere else.. and if its from somewhere else you also add into the picture that it couldn't have been a picture of just zero but now there's dimensions that need to locate the difference between point a and b 0 and where something came from in which case 0 is now "0"@xy & "1"@x2y2.

I truly do not mean to be difficult in my position. It is from that logic, we must ask what math will arise?

I will give a phrase of Greene's to consider.

In fact, by making the object smaller and smaller, the physics and the mathematics align ever more precisely as we get closer and closer to physically realizing the abstract mathematical concept of a point.

The Elegant Universe, by Brain Greene, pg 233

 

[Stevo]

We don't know what "stuff" is and we don't know what "empty" is.

Both of them seem to be unreachable.

Maybe it's because they are.

Maybe at the root of the universe is another principle.

Not "is" or "is not"... but "change."

Without change there would be no universe... just one thing all the time.

A movie is change... a still picture is no change.

Ummmm... I smell popcorn!

Empty is a poor choice of words, because it implies that there is a "container". Similarly, statements like "outside the universe" are misleading.

The question of "What is stuff?" needs to be clarified. Are we asking "What is empirical matter?" or "What is an object?". The two aren't always identical.

 

[Erck]

Empty is a poor choice of words, because it implies that there is a "container". Similarly, statements like "outside the universe" are misleading.

Maybe there's a container outside the universe?

 

[sol2]

Maybe there's a container outside the universe?

How about bubbles

 

[Stevo]

Maybe there's a container outside the universe?

Maybe. Maybe it's God. But there's no sensible reason to believe so.

I don't believe in the container theory of space. I think a lot of modern physics (apart from quantum theory) tells us that space is probably not a container, but is derivative of matter.

 

[Erck]

I don't believe space is a container either... there's always more matter... more space... more matter... ad infinitum.

Don't quite agree that space is a derivative of matter though... I think they are equal players in the game... one not being more essential than the other.

 

[Stevo]

I don't believe space is a container either... there's always more matter... more space... more matter... ad infinitum.

Don't quite agree that space is a derivative of matter though... I think they are equal players in the game... one not being more essential than the other.

How do you mean more matter and more space, ad infinitum? The expanding universe?

 

[Mad_Gouki]

Here is a link that speaks to this issue. I have struggle with this idea of nothing, and just doesn't make sense to me. From this perspective, I always start from something. Is this not logical?

Anyway here is a link of interest.

In the last 30 years, Particle Physicists, Cosmologists and Mathematicians have fought like alley cats, each redefining the concept of zero. But is zero "nothing"? "Nothing" is a serious matter. Understanding the "absolute vacuum" is a compelling quest. Does the Higgs Bosun exist? If we find it, what will it tell us? Why does the universe exist when matter and anti - matter should have canceled each other out at the Big Bang leaving "nothing"?

http://www.infinite.linst.ac.uk/english/symposium/popsympintro.php

my theory on "Why does the universe exist when matter and anti - matter should have canceled each other out at the Big Bang leaving "nothing"?" is that the universe will eventually become nothing... it may have started from nothing, and i don't believe that it is possible to determine how the universe began because even if it were recorded, it would be destroyed when the universe became nothing.

the universe is supposidly in a state of expansion... that is, the KNOWN universe. if the big bang theory is correct... where did the matter that "exploded","banged", whatever, come from?
i think it is quite possible that the universe will stop expanding and start shrinking, to the point where all matter becomes the same thing... what it was originaly, think down to smaller than subatomic...
then something would happen, and what, i don't know, and the process wuld repeat...

but back to answering that question from that article... the reason the universe is still around is because the universe is still changing.

 

[Erck]

One of the problems in understanding the universe... is that we are convinced that it IS something and it is based on something... that actually exists.

If we were to look at it as a relative state in constant change and look somewhere else for real existence... we might be ablle to put things in perspective

 

[Stevo]

One of the problems in understanding the universe... is that we are convinced that it IS something and it is based on something... that actually exists.

If we were to look at it as a relative state in constant change and look somewhere else for real existence... we might be ablle to put things in perspective

I think the existence of the universe is a given. We may be wrong here and there about some of the details, but that doesn't change the underlying fact of the universe's existence.

Conceiving of it as a state of change relative to something else is very problematic from an epistemological point of view. If the universe defines our sphere of possible knowledge (and I see no reason to believe to the contrary) then we have no a priori reason to posit an external structure.

 

[Erck]

Our perception or sense of the universe existing is certainly a given.

As for our knowledge being limited to it... I'm not yet convinced of that.

 

[Stevo]

Our perception or sense of the universe existing is certainly a given.

As for our knowledge being limited to it... I'm not yet convinced of that.

I don't see any reason how knowledge could be gained of something beyond the universe.

 

[Erck]

If the universe is relative... then going beyond it for knowledge is going to where knowledge really is.

 

[Stevo]

If the universe is relative... then going beyond it for knowledge is going to where knowledge really is.

You can't assume that the universe is defined relative to something external to justify the claim that we can know what is beyond the universe. We have no a priori reason to believe that the universe is defined relative to something external.

 

[Erck]

If you look long enough and hard enough... is there a bridge at the outskirts of the universe that crosses over to a place that allows you to turn around and look?

 

[Stevo]

If you look long enough and hard enough... is there a bridge at the outskirts of the universe that crosses over to a place that allows you to turn around and look?

Pure speculation.

 

[Erck]

I posed it as a question... but that doesn't necessarily mean I have't been there.

 

[Stevo]

I posed it as a question... but that doesn't necessarily mean I have't been there.

It's a speculative question that can't be answered in any definitive way. You haven't provided any a priori reason why we should regard the universe as being defined relative to something else.

 

[Erck]

You haven't provided any a priori reason why we should regard the universe as being defined relative to something else.

I know I haven't... I could, but I haven't...and I think I should apologize. As I'm putting this thing together I've come to this forum to put a bit of it out there and get feedback and learn something about what I need to speak to. I'm not a math or science guy... it's been helpful for me to do this... and I can only hope it's been helpful to others.