Can 'nothing' exist?

@existential potential,

Quote:

“nothingness” is that which our minds cannot imagine, because by imagining, we inevitably imagine “something”.

Yes.

0 Replies

@najmelliw,

Quote:

If our universe has expanded for a significant amount of time, it follows that there was a timeslice x in which the size of the universe was smaller then at a later timeslice y. The space that has been occupied by the universe between those slices of time, it can be said to exist at time y, but not at time x, since there was no universe there.
Is nothing then that which will come into existence as part of the universe as we know it at a later moment, but is not as of yet?

Is this making sense?

Yes and no. What you're saying makes sense but I think you've got it backwards. Nothing is that which was before the time that there was a universe as we know it, not the other way around. It may or may not "come into existence as part of the universe as we know it at a later moment," but that's just guesswork. However, that it existed prior to the existence of "the universe as we know it" must be assumed because otherwise the question "what, then, existed before this universe?" remains unanswered.

0 Replies

It's quite possible there is no such thing as nothingness, as we begin to learn about dark matter and dark energy, one of the projects for the up-dated Hubble, and the Herschel and Planck European telescopes that are now orbiting the Earth: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090512-st-herschel-planck.html

It might be a good idea to read about Ed Witten, the man who came up with superstring theory:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/13-the-man-who-led-the-second-superstring-revolution

and Brian Greene

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

That is certainly interesting. The traditional theory regarding the Big Bang has always been that prior to it (the bang-bang) the only "something" that existed was a pinpoint of pure energy which somehow exploded, becoming matter. There was "nothing" else. Brian Greene seems to be implying that prior to the bang everything was energy. There was no matter. The further implication of this would be that there has always been this field of energy everywhere.

Get your mind around that.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Next step -- get your mind around this:

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Okay, but that's just pure guesswork. There's no demonstrable evidence of any such thing as "parallel universes" ever having existed. It's pure speculation. Interesting but without any sound scientific basis.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Of course there's no factual proof -- it's like trying to find out what's in a closet by peeking through the keyhole. If you go beyond that short clip and research how the hypothesis was formed, it's an alternative that fits the puzzle of how our Universe exists. We're obviously not going to be here if and when scientists are able to demonstrate it.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Yeah, yu are right.

0 Replies

Sorry this might have been said before, but:

Do you think this is because we cannot express 'nothing' in linguistic form, since to actually label it makes it into 'something,' even if this something is just a signifier.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Using the primary definition of something as some indeterminate or unspecified thing, nothing can't exist because there is always something there, on our Earthly plane, even a space filled with air is between things. It's not like one is search for their keys, looks in the sofa keys and states, "No, there's nothing there but a quarter."

What you're after is "nothingness," that a there is a state non-existence, a void of zero importance -- emptiness. Like "the emptiness of space." Except it's gradually being proven that space isn't empty of matter and energy. We just can't see it.

Otherwise, it's an existentential or metaphysical phenomena. General symantics can't help with that.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

that why its paradoxical to say that "nothing exists". I've said it before and I'll say it again,there is no such thing as no-thing.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

That's because it's an oxymoron to begin with -- back to semantics.

0 Replies

@phoney,

phoney wrote:

If you can describe or imagine 'nothing' then you are describing something, therefore nothing is something.
I don't think it is possible for the human mind to get to grips with the concept of 'nothingness'.

I think 'nothing' can exist, and probably does, but not in the known universe.

I think if the earth and humans had never come to be, that would still be true, meaning our ability to imagine it is irrelevant (although I think I can).

2 Replies

@Eorl,

"nothing" cannot "exist" by definiton.

"I think "nothing" can exist, and probably does, but not in the known universe"

what is that based on? if nothing "exists" then its no longer nothing, its something.

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Quote:

I think if the earth and humans had never come to be, that would still be true, meaning our ability to imagine it is irrelevant (although I think I can).

Eorl,

On the contrary, all existence is relative to observers.

YOU are conceptualizing a universe devoid of "earth" or "humanity". Its "existence" depends on you !

2 Replies

@fresco,

A solar furnace is independent of man. It's atomic reactions will not change one iota regardless of man's existence-lack of existence* and/or man's perceptions-lack of perceptions.

To think otherwise is no different than any other egocentrism.

Quote:

In psychology, egocentrism is defined as the tendency to perceive, understand and interpret the world in terms of the self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism

Caveat: man could intervene on a interventionist-physics level to alter some of the underlying atomic reactions.

3 Replies

@Chumly,

We do tend to think of nothingness as if it meant that humankind doesn't exist (another of our example of our vast egos). There's a National Geographic Channel series on now imagining an Earth where man (without any particular reason) just disappears and what will happen to our infrastructure, the landscape and other animals. Population Zero:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/aftermath-population-zero-3225

In an abstract concept, that is nothingness for us.

0 Replies

@Chumly,

are we not getting into the relams of ontology and epistemology here?

Fresco...?

0 Replies

@Chumly,

Quote:

A solar furnace is independent of man. It's atomic reactions will not change one iota regardless of man's existence-lack of existence* and/or man's perceptions-lack of perceptions.

To think otherwise is no different than any other egocentrism. Quote:
In psychology, egocentrism is defined as the tendency to perceive, understand and interpret the world in terms of the self.

Well, yes, but -- fortunately or unfortunately -- there is no other way that humans are able to understand and interpret the world except in terms of 'self.' I cannot see the world from your point of view, through your eyes. I can see it only from my point of view, through my senses. Call it egocentrism if you wish, but it's simply the human condition.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Right on, MA.

0 Replies

Can 'nothing' exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know