12
   

What is "nothing"

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2012 05:23 am
@dalehileman,
Don't worry. Admitting to yourself that you don't know something is opening oneself up to learning it. You're doing it right. Wink
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2012 10:06 am
@Cyracuz,
Thank you Cyr, perhaps right tho not always well
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 03:09 pm
@dalehileman,

there are two aspects to nothing

the first is the practical , as was pointed out , nothing in my account , nothing in the fridge , etc

the second is nothing as the exact opposite of something

so therefore nothing has no , depth , breadth , no movemnt ( or time as some perfer and therefore no chance to change into anything ) and no ability to manifest
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 11:22 am
@north,
Just recently nothingness has been referred to as an unstable condition leading to something, eg, the next Big Bang

As it’s troubling to think of nothingness having a specific duration I propose we entertain the idea that it’s zero

I’ve wondered however if there were to occur today for instance a cubic foot of nothingness whether space would rush in to fill it
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 03:01 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Just recently nothingness has been referred to as an unstable condition leading to something, eg, the next Big Bang


hence nothing was something in the first place

in the abstract nothing can be anything and have properties , but this approach really doesn't lead to a better understanding of the Universe

because in the end " their nothing " ends up being something in the end

Quote:
As it’s troubling to think of nothingness having a specific duration I propose we entertain the idea that it’s zero


agreed and absurd

Quote:
I’ve wondered however if there were to occur today for instance a cubic foot of nothingness whether space would rush in to fill it


no

there is no such thing as as a cubic foot of nothing

since you entertain the concept of a cubic foot of nothingness describe how this would come about in the first place
as well space is NOT a physical thing

space is a consequence of energy and matter
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 03:56 pm
@north,
Quote: Just recently nothingness has been referred to as an unstable condition leading to something, eg, the next Big Bang

Quote:
hence nothing was something in the first place
Maybe it’s a semantic issue. If you’re making reference to the idea that something popped out of nothingness (“creation”?) I can’t see how that made it something

Quote:
in the abstract nothing can be anything and have properties ,
Here again we could run into a semantic block of one kind or another. For instance would you call non-existence a property

Quote:
but this approach really doesn't lead to a better understanding of the Universe
Language is something of an impediment

Quote:
because in the end " their nothing " ends up being something in the end
North I presume you mean the “nothing” from which some speculate that “something” comes

Quote:
As it’s troubling to think of nothingness having a specific duration I propose we entertain the idea that it’s zero

Quote:
agreed and absurd
It makes more sense for instance—to me anyhow--than conferring upon it a duration
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 04:20 pm

Quote:
Quote:
hence nothing was something in the first place

Quote:
Maybe it’s a semantic issue. If you’re making reference to the idea that something popped out of nothingness (“creation”?) I can’t see how that made it something


chiral condensate happens all the time

its popping in and out existence is a matter of space , not anything to do with nothing
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2012 09:14 pm
@dalehileman,
...Zero is a number, not nothingness...for all that I know there is zero force resulting of two equal opposing forces....how do you know that "zero" just doesn't mean "balance" in between some things in a system ? Where does nothingness becomes something through a zero ? And if it did, how would it still be nothingness after that ?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 04:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Zero isn't a number for nothingness. It is a number sometimes applied to something of which there is zero value or quantity.

If I have zero dollars it is true that I have no money. But the zero doesn't signify nothingness. It signifies a specific something which I have nothing of. The difference is perhaps subtle, but it is kind of essential.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 08:13 am
@Cyracuz,
Yep, we agree ! Again a balance result...you had X money which you spend...
And spending of course, formal money or not, means trading, you always get something from it...although sometimes not much...
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 09:50 am
@north,
A chiral condensate is an example of a fermionic condensate that appears in theories of massless fermions with chiral symmetry breaking.

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

Oh, I see

Quote:
its popping in and out existence is a matter of space , not anything to do with nothing
Again North we might be on different semantic tracks. The “popping” to which I had reference is the notion of a Big Bang occurring out of a state of “total” nothingness; that is, not even space
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 09:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...Zero is a number, not nothingness...
Yes, no, Fil, yet another semantic issue. I wasn’t equating nothing” with “zero”, what I was suggesting was that the state of nothingness between a Big Crunch and the next Big Bang has a duration of zero
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 10:49 am
@dalehileman,
I can interpret that has both Big Bang and Big Crunch coexisting, although I am not sure that was what you meant...
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 10:55 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes, no Fil, it isn’t. According to the observation that the simpler theory almost always prevails, I can’t feature an infinite number of simultaneous Universes everywhere at all times forever. I’d guess at single sequential productions: Crunch, Naught, Bang, Crunch….maybe forever. However, the idea of the intervening naught seems to entail contradiction and paradox so I propose its duration to be zero
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 11:33 am
@dalehileman,
I didn't meant simultaneous Universes but all possible states of one Universe...not that I have anything for or against simultaneous universes...as for your argument 500 years ago people couldn't image a trillion planets out there either and yet they were wrong...yes it is true simplicity is of essence but simplicity should be the common relational factor of all which is accountable, and that sometimes, renders its expression apparently complicated...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 11:44 am
@dalehileman,
"Zero" is a relatively receent human invention. For that reason I do not feel a need to use it as a descriptive term in cosomological thought.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 11:52 am
@dalehileman,
...my envisioning of simultaneity goes a bit like programs about virtual spaces work...its about the difference between potential mapping and actual mapping...whatever is rendered doesn't entail all that it is possible, although all that it is possible is right there in the program to be rendered when and if you need it...and by "you" I mean anything not any sort of agent pulling the strings...all possible states of a program entail all possible "agency", provided a starting set state is acquired by the program's engine itself, from there what follows is naturally compelled to follow...
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 12:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I didn't meant simultaneous Universes but all possible states of one Universe…
Problem is, the language just isn’t up to what we’re attempting to discuss. If not simultaneous then sequential

Even if sequential forever however, for purpose of simplicity the “laws” of probability insist on an occasional near-exact repetition, typically after an interim of a number of productions so large we have no way of expressing it but still one suggestion that by its in intuitional absurdity leaves me dangling

I’d accept a finite number of productions if I could entertain the idea of its popping into existence out of nothing then eventually returning to the same state but it entails just too much contradiction and paradox

Quote:
not that I have anything for or against simultaneous universes…
Oh I do. Also against infinity

Quote:
as for your argument 500 years ago people couldn't image a trillion planets out there either and yet they were wrong..
I calculate a very minimum of 3 billion inhabited spheres each with about 7 billion inhabitants

Quote:
sometimes, renders its expression apparently complicated...
Very
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 12:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...my envisioning of simultaneity goes a bit like programs about virtual spaces work...its about the difference between potential mapping and actual mapping...whatever is rendered doesn't entail all that it is possible, although all that it is possible is right there in the program to be rendered when and if you need it...and by "you" I mean anything not any sort of agent pulling the strings...all possible states of a program entail all possible "agency", provided a starting set state is acquired by the program's engine itself, from there what follows is naturally compelled to follow...


"Nothing" might well just be a statement on which to an extent one refers to what was not rendered and yet is possible, like no pie in the fridge...in turn meaning its use is "corrupted" if taken at absolute lengths, once no absolute degree of liberty can be applied beyond the program competence, which always refers to something possible as existing in it (the program)...if one try s to refer beyond what is possible one fails to acquire a target...that doesn't mean that such target is a nothing...it just means that it doesn't refer !
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 12:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...my envisioning of simultaneity goes a bit like programs about virtual spaces work..
Oops Fil, did you mean “about how virtual spaces work”

But forgive me, what’s a virtual space

Quote:
.its about the difference between potential mapping and actual mapping..
Interesting you should so remark; as an erstwhile amateur cartographer myself I was of course actual. I don’t know what’s meant by potential mapping unless it’s thinking about starting another map

Quote:
.whatever is rendered doesn't entail all that it is possible, although all that it is possible is right there in the program to be rendered when and if you need it…
Thou mightest have to elaborate, using terms familiar to the Average Clod (me)

Quote:
and by "you" I mean anything not any sort of agent pulling the strings..
Then you suppose by “you” you mean not I but a kind of God, the implication being that She reads all our postings

Quote:
.all possible states of a program entail all possible "agency", provided a starting set state is acquired by the program's engine itself, from there what follows is naturally compelled to follow...
Then are you suggesting some sort of beginning for it all
 

Related Topics

What does the Bible really teach? - Question by anthony1312002
what should i do - Question by itcoraline
what would you do - Question by tontoiam
Maybe there is both nothing and something. - Discussion by qquestioneruestioner
Everything is Nothing - Discussion by Brabke
prove - Question by keshav
Bumper sticker - Discussion by Cyracuz
Nothing is as it seems - Discussion by William
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is "nothing"
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/08/2022 at 07:03:47