An Exercise in nothing semantics.

[CJames]

quantumcarl,

The reason we don't see the other big bangs or results thereof is because of separation by "not anything" or void.

So you have heard this theory? It's sort of a consequence of quantum mechanics. Like a universe springs up due to uncertainty. It's sort of a weird concept. Separate universes. Separate everythings.

Since there is no spacetime connecting us to these alternate universes, they literally do no exist from our frame of reference. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "outta sight, outta mind."

Just as long as you aren't picturing a bunch of separate bubble universes growing next to each other, i'll agree. Because visuallizing that picture, you would imagine two of these universes might touch, which makes no sense. There is no space separating them, they are made of space time.

SO counterintiutive, and yet that's how it works.

Ishop,

Im sure yu realize that the Earth is a sphere(a 3Dimensional object), not 2D.

The SURFACE of Earth is two dimensional. Any position on the planet can be pinpointed by two coordinates.

The universe is 3 dimensional. But it can be curved and warped like a 2 dimensional surface. It's impossible to visualize. But again, that is exactly how it works. I'm not saying I'm right because I am right. I'm saying it because it is the conclusion of a theory that has been tested many many times and has been shown to be correct every time.

However the Big Ban theory deals with a finite amount of materials. Finite materials means exsistence of nothing.

I appologize but this is not the case. The Big Bang does not require that there is a finite amount of material at the beginning of the universe. That is a symplistic understanding. That's what I hate about some of those documentaries on the big bang. They show this picture of a big explosion from the outside as though you could stand outside the universe and watch it expand.

 

[Ishop]

CJames said:

The SURFACE of Earth is two dimensional. Any position on the planet can be pinpointed by two coordinates.

What you are describing in 3Dimensional Design terms is a geosphere. In 3D design a geosphere is a sphere with only one exsisting side (surface). If you go inside the sphere and look out you see nothing. This is not only not 3Dimensional, it is 1Dimensional. If you were to unfold it like a map it would have only one side. You are also in error in thinking that you can find a place on Earth with only two points. True you can, but you are not limited to 2 points. You can find a point on Earth from a third point which is verticle. You are thinking of the world as a map. You are not limited to two points and an objects dimensions are not defined by its limitations, it is defined by its possibilities.

You also said:

The Big Bang does not require that there is a finite amount of material at the beginning of the universe. That is a symplistic understanding. That's what I hate about some of those documentaries on the big bang. They show this picture of a big explosion from the outside as though you could stand outside the universe and watch it expand.

I would LOVE to hear what you think the Big Bang was. Obviously to you the Big Bang had no Big Bang, it does not expand just moves around, and there is an infinite amount of matter and energy. I think you're barking up the wrong theory.

Eh said:

The geometry of the field (space) can be either infinite or finite, we just don't know which.

If you don't know then why are you arguing against me? According to you I could be right. I say one thing, and you say, well you're wrong cause we don't know. [?] Also, geometry deals with finite equations when used in real life situations.. True projective geometry deals with infinite lines, but these are adhered to a 2Dimensional Semishphere which cannot exsist in real space.

Then you said:

since by definition you cannot have a place without space. There logically can be no "outside" of space, and as I said space IS the gravitational field.

AGAIN! I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT SPACE CONTAINS GRAVITAIONAL FIELDS! Stop acting like I disagree with that statement. Also, you have to see that the word "place" is used as a concept and not its English definition. I think you are hung up on words. I also see no argument for why there cannot be "logically" no outside of space. You are saying there is gravity everywhere because gravity is infinite. Fine, if you asume gravity is infinite you could argue that, I do not asume that. You said you simply do not know. But then you say:

a finite universe does not lend credibility to the idea.

Yes, it actually does. Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere. Any absense of these exsisting things is "nothing". Tell me, if you ever got to the "hypothetical" edge of EVERYTHING, what would you call beyond that? And there would be an edge if the universe was finite. In fact, it has to have an end if it is finite. You can't say...there's is something else out there...because that is exsistence and it is not the edge.

Then you said:

The big bang is not incompatible with an infinite or finite space.

So its just like...whatever. Everything applies. Ok.

After you quoted me as saying:

I won't argue down to the atom, but I do like that you used the terms "finite amount of energy everywhere". Making me think again that you see the exsisting universe as finite. Which proves a "nothing".

You then replied:

Does not follow.

None of this makes sense to you? This is what doesn't make sense to me. You argue that we don't know if gravity is finite or infinite so I'm wrong for assuming that it is finite. Then you argue that the universe is infinite according to the Big Bang. Then you argue that the Big Bang doesn't care if the universe is infinite or finite. Then you say there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. Then you say even if the universe has an end, still doesn't prove there is a "nothing", which is exactly what proves there is a "nothing". THIS does not follow.

I don't mean to be so harsh. Please do not think these arguements are an attack on you personally. I'm just a heated debater

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Ishop ...If you don't know then why are you arguing against me? According to you I could be right. I say one thing, and you say, well you're wrong cause we don't know. [?]

I am arguing against your logic. Your claim that a finite universe implies there is a place where there is nothing, does not logically follow. While the universe may be embeded in external space, it is NOT a necessity. This seems to be a basic question of geometry.

Also, geometry deals with finite equations when used in real life situations.. True projective geometry deals with infinite lines, but these are adhered to a 2Dimensional Semishphere which cannot exsist in real space.

Nonsense. 1D lines apply to 2D surfaces as well as 3D areas.

AGAIN! I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT SPACE CONTAINS GRAVITAIONAL FIELDS! Stop acting like I disagree with that statement.

No, you don't get it. Space does not CONTAIN the field, it IS the field. No gravitational field, no space.

Also, you have to see that the word "place" is used as a concept and not its English definition. I think you are hung up on words. I also see no argument for why there cannot be "logically" no outside of space.

Then you need to learn some logic, seriously. The term "outside" IS a term related to to space. I see you are attempting to do away with the definition of "place" by calling it a concept. But that is pure nonsense, since the "concept" has always had a geometric meaning. You simply cannot invent any arbitrary definition of the word to slide out of an argument, especially in the context of this discussion. You also cannot have space (area, place, etc.) outside of space, as that is a blatent contradiction.

You are saying there is gravity everywhere because gravity is infinite. Fine, if you asume gravity is infinite you could argue that, I do not asume that. You said you simply do not know.

I did not say gravity, nor space is infinite. Are you actually reading anything?

Yes, it actually does. Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere.

Do you seriously not see the logical contradiction here? You have just said you think there is a place[/b] where there is no space. From basic logic it follow that you cannot have a place (region of space) where there is no space.

A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent. If space had an edge, that edge will simply be that furthest point there is. In geometry you can define an object without reference to external space, and that includes edges. It seems that geometry is more the topic here than ontology.

Any absense of these exsisting things is "nothing". Tell me, if you ever got to the "hypothetical" edge of EVERYTHING, what would you call beyond that? And there would be an edge if the universe was finite. In fact, it has to have an end if it is finite. You can't say...there's is something else out there...because that is exsistence and it is not the edge.

Sigh. It has already been explained to you why the universe does not posses an edge. If it did, crossing it would be exactly the same as if the universe was expanding on its own. The volume would be increasing.

None of this makes sense to you? This is what doesn't make sense to me...

I'm sorry, but your arguments are completely lacking in logic and sound reasoning. Your arguments have been addressed by members here, but you are refusing to address valid points, and are frequently hiding behind semantics. Worse, you are not reading the explanations given, or you have a reading comprehension problem. As a result you are coming up strawman attacks on arguments that were never made. Let's see what you wrote below for examples:

"You argue that we don't know if gravity is finite or infinite so I'm wrong for assuming that it is finite."

Never said that. I said your conclusion that a finite universe means there are places where there is nothing does not logically follow.

Then you argue that the universe is infinite according to the Big Bang.

Never said that either, though I pointed out that the theory is compatible with both infinite and finite.

Then you argue that the Big Bang doesn't care if the universe is infinite or finite.

See above.

Then you say there is a finite amount of energy in the universe.

And I never said that either. I said there is a finite amount of energy at each point in space. That's a far cry from saying the total amount of energy is finite, and no one who actually read the post would make that mistake.

Then you say even if the universe has an end, still doesn't prove there is a "nothing", which is exactly what proves there is a "nothing". THIS does not follow.

I have addressed this above. This is a question of basic geometry.

I don't mean to be so harsh. Please do not think these arguements are an attack on you personally. I'm just a heated debater

And don't take offense when I say learn your logic in this thread has been atrocious. It's not an insult, but needs to be pointed out and corrected if we are to have an intelligent conversation.

This entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of geometry, for example. The volume of an object has nothing to do with external space, and the edge or boundary of an object has nothing to with any space beyond it. It is misunderstandings like this that cause people to think the universe is expanding into a void. It does not take an expert on cosmology to refute that, as it is simply a question of geometry. As such, learning about it will avoid discussions like this in the future.

 

[kyleb]

Ishop, you might be interested in reading Gorgias' essay "On Non-Being." i dug around a bit hoping to find it online but had no luck. i imagine you can find it in just about any library though.

also, please note though that the essay is an example of sophistry and do not try to use such arguments as it tends to severely aggravate anyone who actually thinks with their own mind. "nothing" is very much a theoretical construct that has no place in reality, regardless of the fact that rhetorical arguments can lead people to believe otherwise.

 

[Ishop]

Eh, I see our responses frowing longer lol.

Let's start with your geometry lesson.

You said:

A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent

Lets take a square (basic geometry). There is a square, there is an end to the square. There is an area outside the square. This seems pretty basic to me. Here is a square, here there is not a square. What's the problem? Seems logical. Where is the flaw in logic?

Now, I'm throwing out the word space as far as me using it. In fact, I have not used it except to say I would accept your definition of space. Even the further explained one that space IS gravitational fields. You are the one applying the word space to my arguements.

The word place when referring to a location where no thing exsist will be known as plac# on my replies for now on. This is a concept in which you can determine where "nothing" is my seeing that there is no thing. It is a hypothetical understanding since you cannot measure "nothing" you are really measuring the boundries of exsistence. Here, geometry again. Such as you have four red squares in a cross pattern. There is an empty plac# in between all four squares and you can measure this. Not by itself, but by the four exsisting squares. Just as you can measure dark by the absence of light.

Also, when I spoke of geometry applied to reality, you said:

Nonsense. 1D lines apply to 2D surfaces as well as 3D areas.

1D lines are not present in reality. Even if you have a line of atoms side by side, it is still 3D becasue it has 3 sides to it. If you could see a line on one side, but it does not exsist on the other, that would be 1D.

After I said:

Because a finite universe is finite gravity. Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere.

You said:

Do you seriously not see the logical contradiction here? You have just said you think there is a place[/b] where there is no space. From basic logic it follow that you cannot have a place (region of space) where there is no space

Where did I say the word "space", "place", or "region" in what you quoted me as saying above? I said I agree that space is gravitaional fields...why would I then say that there is gravitaional fields(space) where there is no gravitaional fields(space)? I didn't and you are misreading me. This is why you do not see logic.

You also said:

A finite space simply has a finite volume and does not mean there is a place where it is absent.

And you complain about MY logic? finite means that there is an end. If there is an end, then there is either something or nothing past that end. If not something or nothing tell me what then. Obviously if there is an end to spaace, universe, all exsistence, then there cannot be a something past the end, so there must be nothing. How is this illogical to you? A is exsistence, N is A - A, so if A = 2 then N = 0. This is soooooo basic logic.

You said:

In geometry you can define an object without reference to external space, and that includes edges.

Okay, define a square without its edges. Can you do it? No. Becasue without defining edges you can have no measurement. Geometry is all measurements. You start off in basic geometry class with a freakin ruler. Please show the mathmatical equation that will prove a square without using measurements. Can't wait.

you said:

This entire thread is based on your misunderstanding of geometry, for example. The volume of an object has nothing to do with external space, and the edge or boundary of an object has nothing to with any space beyond it.

Passing the fact that you are using the word space and not void where needed, I agree somewhat in what you are meaning here. However, if I draw a square, the void outside that square has no control over the square, but the square has defined an area where there is no more void.

I have on this thread agreed to your term of space, and your explanation of "expansion" although it is clearly growth. However your claims, while stating that they are logical and fall within the boundries of basic geometry...are not and do not. Correct me if I am wrong in asuming that what you mean to say is that all there is is exsistence...even if it is finite. The very fact that you say there is no "space" outside of exsistence reaffirms there is nothing outside of exsistence. No space, no nothing. You cannot get there, you cannot measure it, it does not exsist. Which is the very nature of "nothing"

Last but not least you said:

Sigh. It has already been explained to you why the universe does not posses an edge. If it did, crossing it would be exactly the same as if the universe was expanding on its own. The volume would be increasing.

This is why I put the word "hypothetical" in quotation marks before the word edge as you quoted me saying in your response. Agreed that if you did reach a "hypothetical" edge and went beyond it you would not be outside the universe as you are part of it. However you can clearly imagine if you were two steps ahead...what that is right now before you make it there. It is nothing. No space, no time, nothing.

If you are to respond again with "geometry" this and "geometry" that, would you please refer to some equation or graph which is part of geometry that would serve your ideas? Perhaps then you can help my "limited" knowledge of geometry as you put it lol.

 

[Ishop]

Kyleb said:

"nothing" is very much a theoretical construct that has no place in reality

and i couldn't have said it better myself. if it is not real, it is not part of reality. in fact, "nothing" is the opposite of reaity. It is concept. The absence of reality or exsistence is nothing.

However I will, for now skip your recomendation to read the essay since right after you refer me to it you say don't use it its rubbish. Hope you aren't a book salesman hehe.

 

[kyleb]

i did not say the essay is rubbish, only that it is an example of a sophistical argument that is used to convince weak minded people of fallacies. however, there is much to be learned from understanding why those arguments are wrong and how there is no "opposite of reality", although there can be the illusion of such.

 

[Eh]

Yes, these posts are getting long. But that is because you are not addressing the points being made, and are simply repeating the same drivel over and over. It's a waste of time to repeat myself over and over again, so I'm going to cut this short and focus on the crux of the argument.

Originally posted by Ishop

Lets take a square (basic geometry). There is a square, there is an end to the square. There is an area outside the square. This seems pretty basic to me. Here is a square, here there is not a square. What's the problem? Seems logical. Where is the flaw in logic?

Here is the first misunderstanding that isn't being addressed. There isn't any problem, until you insist that you need the space outside to define the square. The point I have made is that an object is defined without reference to any external space.

Where did I say the word "space", "place", or "region" in what you quoted me as saying above?

And here is where the bulk of the misunderstanding comes from. You are constantly saying that. From this thread alone, here are some of the times you have said that there is a place or area where there is nothing.

"...The noun is area. So instead of saying there is not a thing in this area. You say there is nothing here. Nothing meaning: not a thing in this area. So, even your explanation of expansion requires there to be a nothing. "

"...An area defined by the lack of something. It is a negative property and therefore can exsist."

"...This coincides with a finite universe meaning that there is somewhere outside the universe that has no universe "not a thing" including gravitaional fields and curves."

"...Also why the Big Bang theory proves there is an area with "not a thing" in it (nothing)."

"...Which means at some point gravity, matter, EVERYTHING must stop being somewhere"

So whether you admit it or not, you HAVE been talking about space, and your arguments amount to saying there is a space where there is no space. Attempting to hide behind semantics is not going to work. And the point of this thread has been that space is a "thing" like anything else.

And you complain about MY logic? finite means that there is an end. If there is an end, then there is either something or nothing past that end.

This also has to do with the definition of a geometrical object. An "end" does not have anything to do with external space. You can take any point of a geometric object and move towards the furthest point in X direction. This point has nothing to do with being any space beyond it. While any object in our universe obviously has space beyond it's borders, that is only because it happens to be embeded in space-time. But the definition of an object has nothing to do with outside space, and so a finite universe is not necessarily contained with any external space.

Notice how I said not necessarily contained, not that it is impossible. It is only the argument that a finite universe MUST be contained by an outside is demonstrately false.

If not something or nothing tell me what then. Obviously if there is an end to spaace, universe, all exsistence, then there cannot be a something past the end, so there must be nothing. How is this illogical to you? A is exsistence, N is A - A, so if A = 2 then N = 0. This is soooooo basic logic.

Posters here have already explained to you countless times the meaning of a negative word like nothing, but you refuse to pay attention. "Not anything past the end means there is literally no outside at all. That is the proper logical use of negation, but you obviously don't see it. Further, I have shown you that space itself is a thing. So address those arguments, or stop wasting time.

 

[Mentat]

Well, I agree with Eh, about the whole BB argument - and I would reply to the arguments against it, but Eh is doing superbly, on his on. Anyway, I would also like to remind you all that this thread is not about BB theory. It is about the fact that "nothing" means "not anything", and that debates on what "nothing" is are pointless.

 

[CJames]

Yes exactly, Mentat. Ishop, this thread is about the semantics of the word "nothing." And while you keep saying you understand that there is no space outside of space Eh has shown you that you keep referring to it as though it were a place with area and distance.

You have proven Mentat's point nicely. The word nothing can construe things easily and should be avoided in most cases.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by CJames
quantumcarl,So you have heard this theory? It's sort of a consequence of quantum mechanics. Like a universe springs up due to uncertainty. It's sort of a weird concept. Separate universes. Separate everythings.

Since there is no spacetime connecting us to these alternate universes, they literally do no exist from our frame of reference. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "outta sight, outta mind."

Just as long as you aren't picturing a bunch of separate bubble universes growing next to each other, i'll agree. Because visuallizing that picture, you would imagine two of these universes might touch, which makes no sense. There is no space separating them, they are made of space time.

SO counterintiutive, and yet that's how it works.

To tell you the truth, CJames, I thought it was my own theory... but, its so simple that I also thought someone else would have come up with it, as well.

"Separate everything". Physically and conceptually, yes. However... the nuance of influence exists as well. And so complete separation seems only to be a concept, too.
That's like the myth of an "outside observer'.
We know this little phenomenon cannot exist in that the "outside observer" automatically becomes a part of that which they observe... through the power of observational influence and quantum logic(?). And relativity is partially suspended.

There is another consideration in this philosophy of Quantum Mechanics and Uncertainty. Consider the field generated by a universe. This would extend beyond the actual physical "bubble" for some amount of "area". This gets into a gradient logic that only exists in physical and conceptual models... because I don't see a field (g?) generated by a universe as intermingling with what Mentat describes as "not anything".

We really do need to use "counter intuition" to get a hold of these concepts.

 

[Ishop]

CJames, you just referred to "nothing" as "it". Does that mean you think it is "something"...of course not. I would not presume that and nor should any reasonable person asume that I am applying space and area to "nothing". We say "there is nothing there" because our language is limited. I have said plenty of times that the word "nothing" causes problems because people get stuck in the limitations of language just as you and Eh both thik that I am applying area and space to "nothing" by saying there is nothing outside of exsistence. Our language prohibits me from putting it any other way.

Mentat said:

It is about the fact that "nothing" means "not anything", and that debates on what "nothing" is are pointless.

I have said this continuously. In almost every post. "not anything". However in a forum about Philosophy no thing is pointles to argue. If it was pointless to argue then why start a thread on it. The bringing up of BB theory was only to illustrate that the concept of nothing is present. Not anything is not anything. Eh was saying there is no not anything or no nothing, which is what I was arguing against.

 

[(Q)]

“The universe is expanding into nothing.”

“The universe is not expanding into anything.”

The first statement suggests closure (unless one wishes to argue the concept of nothing.) The second leaves one hanging to beg the question, “So, what IS the universe expanding into?”

 

[kyleb]

if it was expanding into something then it would not be the universe.

 

[Ishop]

Agreed with Q and Kyleb. Except the universe cannot expand into anything. Anything would then be considered part of the universe since it exsist.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
“The universe is expanding into nothing.”

“The universe is not expanding into anything.”

The first statement suggests closure (unless one wishes to argue the concept of nothing.) The second leaves one hanging to beg the question, “So, what IS the universe expanding into?”

This is incorrect. The second statement (which means exactly the same thing as the first one, mind you) resolves the question of what the universe is "expanding into" perfectly. It isn't expanding into anything

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

I agree. However, if someone who knew very little of cosmology asked you what the universe was expanding into, I think the second response would leave that person to continue to wonder what the universe was expanding into. That answer could even suggest that the universe is not expanding at all, “It isn’t expanding into anything.”

Maybe we need to come up with an entirely difference answer altogether. How about:

“The universe is expanding into a void.”

Void - the state of nonexistence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

I agree. However, if someone who knew very little of cosmology asked you what the universe was expanding into, I think the second response would leave that person to continue to wonder what the universe was expanding into. That answer could even suggest that the universe is not expanding at all, “It isn’t expanding into anything.”

Maybe we need to come up with an entirely difference answer altogether. How about:

“The universe is expanding into a void.”

Void - the state of nonexistence.

Well, it doe stand to reason that if the universe is not expanding into anything, the question of what it is expanding into is entirely moot, but I suppose someone might still ask it (perhaps if they don't believe me). Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light .

Also, the view is not that the universe is expanding into a void. It is that the universe is not expanding into anything (I feel like I'm repeating myself ). A void is something.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

I'm surprised you disagree with that answer. The definition of void is a state of non-existence. Everything that can be considered to exist must be part of the universe. Anything that does not exist is not part of the universe.


My head is beginning to hurt.

 

[kyleb]

anythng that does not exist is not part of anything at all (Q).

 

[(Q)]

anythng that does not exist is not part of anything at all (Q).

Precisely, and that is what the universe is expanding into.

 

[kyleb]

that is circular logic.

 

[(Q)]

that is circular logic.

Come now - I was joking.

 

[Ishop]

This is ridiculous, we are all saying the same thing with different words.

Not anything means nothing. Void means nothing. Non-exsistence means nothing. Mentat says there is no nothing because nothing does not exsist there fore you cannot say there is nothig. (my summing up of what I think you are saying, please tell me if I am incorrect). Clearly the English language has taken the concept of nothing (non exsistence, void, whatever) and had to place it as a noun even though it is the very opposite of a noun. Because the language treats it as a noun it causes people to think that this is a paradoxal statement. The concept of void is not incorrect, simply the use of it in our laguage. Our language lacks the complexity to convey certain concepts without cheating itself sometimes. This is what we are stuck in and why it frustrates everyone. No one here (presuming) is mistaking "nothing" to be something. It is simply the language that we speak has placed "nothing" as a noun and thus causes confusion. Our language does not contain anti-nouns. However if it did and had its own gramarical rules, I'm sure the words nothing, void, non-exsistent, would all be covered by it. We all agree in concept, it is the language that is messing us up.

However i cannot place Eh in this agreement because I'm not sure that he agrees that the concept of void is even correct (correct me as well if I am mistaking your asumption). From what I have read from your posts is that you believe that the universe is infinitley material. Though you have said that the universe could be finite and still the concept of void or nothing be incorrect. That logic I am still hoping you will explain. I would be most interested in hearing it. Or possibly I have misread your any posts as on occasion you have pointed out I have before and you have misread mine on occasion.

 

[Ishop]

Oh Mentat said:

Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light

I know what you're saying here and I would agree that that would be a stupid question to ask after hearing that there is nothing faster than the speed of light. Unless you could believe that speed could be infinesimal. Which of course the only thing faster than the speed of light would be teleportation and that could be argued not to be speed since you were not in the middle of point A and B at any given time of the travel. I'm not sure if I would classify teleportation speed, but seems like that would be a good debate.

If it is true that nothing travels faster than the speed of light and you said nothing does, then someone would be stupid to ask that question. But I don't think that is a relevant hypothetical question pertaining to the arguement. If someone says that the universe is expanding into nothing, then the answer to "what is the universe expanding into" is nothing. Like if i said A = B and then someone said what does B =? A of course. We all agree that the universe is expanding in some form or fashion. Which means it is in movement. It does not move into anything because if there was anything it would be part of the universe. Saying the universe is expanding into nothing is not saying it is expanding into anything (see my above post) And it is not saying that the universe is not expanding. It simply means that there is void, non-exsistence in which exsistence can move into at anytime and make it an area (something).

 

[Mentat]

Ishop, glad to see that you have grasped the concept rather superbly.

(Q), a void exists. If it exists, then it is not nothing, but something. If it is something, then it exists within the universe. The universe is not expanding into a void, it is not expanding into anything at all.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, it doe stand to reason that if the universe is not expanding into anything, the question of what it is expanding into is entirely moot, but I suppose someone might still ask it (perhaps if they don't believe me). Seriously, it would be like my saying that nothing travels faster than the speed of light (for example), and then someone wondering what it was that traveled faster than the speed of light .

Also, the view is not that the universe is expanding into a void. It is that the universe is not expanding into anything (I feel like I'm repeating myself ). A void is something.

To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.

As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!

Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

If a void is defined as non-existence, how can it exist as something? That is a contradiction.

Non-existence is not part of the universe.

 

[arivero]

For an atomist, a void is defined as the container of distances.

 

[Eh]

Yes, the atomists got over the seemingly contradictory concept of the void. They did accept that while the void was empty of all matter and substance we normally refer to as being, it was still "something" in the fact that is was the spatial reality.

Today, the empty space is still often called a void in physics, even though it is not as empty as the atomists would have believed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
To be able to quantify "nothing" in any way, shape or form means it exists as a concept. Therefore it becomes apparent, to me, that we are unable to conceptualize the absence of everything... as is described by any description we put to that sort of (non)phenomenon.

As has been suggested, we need to use counter intuition to deal with this subject... or lack thereof!

Furthermore... a state AND a non-state... by all the current standards of physics, hyperphysics, philosophy and so on... regardless of its content or non-content is still a part of the uniniverse... as is revealed by the definition of a universe which encompasses all states... non-states... uncertainty or certainty... etc..

It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them. To say that there is a void, outside of the universe, is wrong because a void is something. However, I'm not saying that there is a certain thing, called "nothing", that is out there either. I'm saying (and hopefully people will stop asking the same questions) that there isn't anything "out there", not a void, not empty space (which is technically a void anyway), nothing at all

Well, in that case... I'm not goin' there.

 

[Ishop]

Just being picky again, Mentat said:

It only exists as a negative concept. Negative concepts (such as cold) do not really exist (physically), but we concieve of them.

I would use dark as an example. Cold can actually be measured and it is the slow motion of particles tht causes it. Also in response to your reply to my last post...I have always said those things, they have just been misread I suppose.

 

[kyleb]

he means as in absolute 0 "cold." just like absolute darkness such things do not exist in nature.

 

[quantumcarl]

According to the title of this thread, it concerns an excercise in the "semantics" of "nothing".

Yet we have the author claiming that there are no semantics to the word nothing and that there can be only one meaning attached to the word when, truthfully, semantics involves the fact that there is an individual meaning to a word according to who is using the word.

We have mentat claiming that he and only he has the correct definition for the word "nothing". He is unbending and claims that if someone's semantic idea of the word does not match his semantic idea of the word... they are "wrong".

I think, perhaps, mentat might better have titled this thread
"My Philosophy Concerning Nothing"... so that his defensive posture could make a bit more sense to those participants concerned.

Moreover, mentat is arguing in support of his semantic understanding of "nothing" in an absolute vacuum of proof concerning his topic... relying soley on his and other's speculations which is the nature of a semantic debate.

Further to this, in a semantic debate or "excercise, no one participant is wrong, save for the one who makes such a claim.