There is no such thing as NOTHING, so...........

Alikimr, it's only a perspective, but to me a vacuum IS something. And even things have a kind of non-being about them. Remember that there is only becoming or process in reality. We freeze the processes into discrete and static beings or things, because our language is noun-oriented. It is very hard for me to talk about something if it is always in the process of changing, of becoming something else. So I focus on naming it and referring to its name, AS IF it were a solid thing.
In Buddhist thought (if there is such a thing) this constant, inherent and fundamental state of changING is referred to as the "emptiness" of the World (Sunyatta).

I believe its called the nagual.

I understand "nagual" to mean the animal alterego of a Indian (central America) brujo or witch. It is an animal form he or she is able to change to, similar to Dracula changing into a bat. I've known many Mexican peasants (camapesinos) who believe in them and even claim to see them. I was sitting one evening with a maya peasant making small talk when he suddenly took a rifle from his hut and shot at an owl in a distant tree. He explained to me that it was the nagual of a brujo who was spying on us. The witch wanted to know, he said, what I was doing there with the peasant.

sounds like you've had a major scientific breakthrough...can I see your evidence? the fact is that we have very little evidence from before the big bang and making any assumptions about what was there before it is not really possible to do.

this is a horrible thesis, i suggest you spend your creativity designing a god with a more arms or legs rather than trying to design some acceptable theory based on zero evidence!

if you want to prove that nothing is impossible, you've got to do so from a scientific perspective...and by scientific, i mean logical. your main case might be in dark matter or antimatter or something....but since it isn't understood or proven and you have no new evidence, there really is no case.



usually our universe refers to the volume of space containing matter, which is why we say our universe is "expanding" because all the matter that we know of is shooting outward. we don't know if there's matter outside of this that's not expanding. heck, we don't know if there are millions of big bangs operating on matter outside of each other's grasp.

also, where do you get the idea that there is an infinite amount of energy?

don't take my harshness personally but i think you are jumping into something too big for your shoes

stuh505:
I appreciate your antithesis,although your statement that "if I want to prove that nothing is impossible" is somewhat baffling and leaves your
understanding of the thesis a little questionable.
By the way , have you ever heard of
Hoyle's "Steady State " theory , which in effect
describes a continuous creation in our Cosmos ?
If so, you would have noted that my shoes are jumping into his footsteps.
Also, where do you get the idea that there is a finite amount of energy in the entirety of our
known and unknown Universe ?
Your statement that there could be millions of Big Bangs in operation at any time is ofcourse not alien to the concept of continuous
creation, and is therefore not antithetical to this
thesis , which you labelled as "horrible" .....in an untypical "rush to judgement" from stuh505.
Any further contribution to the negation of the thesis , so that we can develop a more acceptable position would be welcome.

Really, Stuh, you should work on your interactive style. Instead of having an interesting discussion with Alikimr about possibilities, you've inflamed him such that you are now beginning to look like combatants. I know I sometimes make the same mistake, but I am working on it.

You're right Alikimir, "There is no such thing as NOTHING" which is the reason why a vacuum ACTUALLY IS something. I don't wish to invoke Buddhist principles here but I will mention the name of Richard Feynman who calculated that the vacuum contained in a normal light bulb if instantly and wholly converted to energy could destroy half our galaxy. I don't recall where I read it but it was a revelation because I always intuitively thought of a vacuum as super compressed primal energy and if not that then at least the catalyst to set it off. It offered itself as a kind of corrobation which proves I wasn't standing on my head too often!

At the risk of sounding too koan-like again, simplicity shifts to mystery when it dissolves into its own power - assuming there's anything simple about a Vacuum. "Simplicity" is almost perverse in that respect but I don't take it personnally.

An afterthought! If by means of mental metaphysics one could completely empty the mind imagine the revelation you'd be in for.

Regarding Expansion - it's not matter that's shooting outward but Space itself. All objects are virtually stationary as far as expansion is concerned. It is space itself that is expanding and accelerating. The analogy is often given of dots on a balloon that's being inflated. If it's only matter that's shooting outward, that space would have to pre-exist. Unless things have changed from a year or 2 ago, that doesn't seem to be the case; cosmologists are still silent about what's OUTSIDE the space that's expanding. This seems to be the NOTHING that remains unmodified by empty space.

The concept of nothing was a major advance is western thinking (others had it before). Two examples of the result of the concept of nothing are the number (or symbol) zero, and a place system of numbers (invented in india). The concept of nothing, and zero were once religiously suspect. In medieval Europe it was possible at one time to get into trouble by espousing such radical notions.

Aquiunk, as I recall, the Maya symbol for zero is an empty sea shell. As I interpret it the inside of the shell, the absence of anything, explains the choice of that symbol for zero. Of course, I may be only projecting my cultural disposition onto the Maya.

As a symbol can mean anything it originators wish, I haven't a clue. But I like your explanation.

In fact, there is a so called "vacuum energy".

alikimr



Not Too Swift





There is no such 'thing' as NOTHING?

Yes well,…………. no kidding.

Of course that does not mean NOTHING does not have presence/existence as that which is not objectifyable, i.e. void, Atman/Brahman, neti neti, >that<, consciousness etc.

Just because we can't comprehend nothing doesn't mean it doesn't exist (Actually nothing doesn't exist, because it is nothing). But if we try to think what nothing is like, than we think of it as something and thats why we can't comprehend it. I believe that the universe had a beginning, and that there was nothing before. Not a "vacuum", NOTHING. There was no space in this "nothing." There was nothing there, not one thing. But if you try to imagine what its like, than you are thinking of it like it is something, when it is nothing.

Omega6:
You categorically state that the universe had a beginning and that there was nothing before.
So you certainly have a comprehension of what nothing is in order to make such an assertion,
Since you obviously are an advocate of "beginnings" , it would follow that you would
also believe in the "ends" of things......tell me, will this universe end by going back to this "nothing"?

twyvel:
Since omega6 returned me to this thread
to-day, I couldn't help but re-read your much earlier post to which I did not reply earlier.
After a few discussions we have had recently on another thread, all very pleasant and
constructive, it is almost obligatory to comment on the position you have taken on this particular
point of "nothing".
You imply/state that ' NOTHING has
presence/existence.......' I am not sure if you are
making that statement in your non-dualism Buddhist sense, or if you are stating a real fact of reality, in the ordinary dualism perspective. At any
rate, the Nothingness I am talking about is best
described by J.P.Sartre in his "Being and Nothingness". Existence is Being , and non-existence is Nothingness.
I hope the implied dualism doesn't stop
you from considering the proposition.

I say there IS such a *thing* as "nothing." In debates like this, it really comes down to semantics. And, according to Merriam-Webster, a vacuum is "1 : emptiness of space 2 a : a space absolutely devoid of matter." So in fact, if there is "something" (even energy since e-mc^2) in a vacuum, then it is NOT a vacuum and IS a poor example of "nothing." The fact that we cannot procduce a perfect vacuum does not falsify the existance of one. Not long ago men could not fly like birds do... yet I spend nearly every day in a machine that flies faster than any bird.

Ooooo... so, alikimir, you are apparently well-up on your sicence and whatnot... but what about math? math is the language of the universe. anything in the world of science that can be proven or disproven can be done using mathematics, as they are absolute, with no room for word play or ambiguous definitions. Now, i propose there is such thing as nothing. Our grand mathematic theory proves it quite simply. Phi. The empty set.

A wonderful question I've seen posed about nothing and its role in the biblical creation story:

If God is Infinite, and He created the world out of nothing, then what is the nothing He created the world out of?


This led to a number of inventive theories on the part of Jewish mystics.

USAF, I'm no mathematician, but I think I can make meta-type statements about it. First, I do not think you can say with certainty that mathematics is the language of nature or the universe, just because it is completely abstract and free of connotation. It remains the language of human abstract thought, at least one form of human abstract thought. Mathematical theory is another way of thinking, with obvious advantages, but it is also has disadvantages defined by its own limits (which are limitations). It consists of constructs or constructions. For example, Phi, the empty set, is a construct, just like my notion of sunyatta (the Buddhist notion of void or emptiness). Just because I posit the construct that does not mean that I have described something "out there" in the world in some absolute way. It's an expression, like Phi, of what's in my head. Your confidence in the objective reality of things, like sound (of falling trees) and math constructs, is as problematical to me as it is comforting to you.

Alikimr, I wonder if Tywvel is thinking of mentioning to you that you have begged the question when you asked him if he is talking non-dualistically or if he is "stating a REAL fact OF REALITY, in the ordinary dualistic perspective."

Regarding the ontological status of "nothingness", if a bird were flying though our matter-filled space and suddenly passed into a vacuum, would that not have some effect on him and his flight? And, if so, would that not suggest that the nothing-ness of the vacuum is a kind of something-ness?