An Exercise in nothing semantics.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by 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.

"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
"In a semantic debate, no one is wrong", are you kidding me? A semantic debate is as much a debate as any other kind, and in a debate there is at least one person who is wrong.

I disagree. (And when I do so... it does not mean you are "wrong")
Semantics is the study of the "dual-meanings" of words. Even if someone came to this thread and said... "nothing is everything"... this would be their meaning and something they would attempt to prove... by way of debate.

If a word can have dual-meanings its bound to have even more meanings when two or more people are involved in a discussion concerning a word and its meaning.

It gets more tedious from here. No one meaning is correct, or incorrect, when dealing with a word as semantic as "nothing".
It may not be as tedious as studying the semantics of the word "love"... but close.

So, while it is prudent to state one's disagreement with a definition of a word... it is only destructive to the process of a discussion to say a definition is "wrong".

It is, by far, more constructive to say... convince me... baby!

However... in the case of scientific debate there are wrong points of view and definitions and there are right ones.

I might say an electron is a politician's demographic constituency when it is actually something that remains in, joins or leaves the orbit of an atom. In the case of my first statement, I would be way "wrong" because there is only one, established, meaning to the word "electron".

 

[Mentat]

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

If, indeed, your's is a scientific debate then it belongs in a scientific area of this forum. As it stands it is disguised as a philosophical debate by way of residing in the philosophy area. Perhaps moving the idea to a more rigorous audience and set of rules will help you explore "nowhere" and "nothing".

"Under the wieght of logical debate" this topic of yours, "nothing", is practically impossible to debate since nothing does not exist, by certain definitions of the word. Debating something that does not exist can be draining and is usually reserved for experienced script writers with FOX or COLUMBIA PICTURES.

Now, I'd like you to note... in a philisophical way, how there was no post... or... "nothing" here... before I put a post here... and that, in light of this... no post existing here has helped to facilitate the posting of this post.

If there had been a post here, where this one is, I would not have been able to post here. And this, philosophically and scientifically, is called the "potential" for "something" due to the absence of "something".

That is why I tend to define "nothing" as the potential for "something" to occur... (in a philosophical manner)... and after the manner of Lao Tzu's works from 600 bc.

 

[CJames]

OMG these word games are going to drive me completely and utterly mad.

Nothing does have semantics, it can be interpreted as meaning absolute nothing, or as an area where there is nothing except for space and time, or an area where there is space and time and air and a room but nothing else.

That is why it is easiest to say the universe isn't expanding into anything.

But as has been brought up, that has semantics as well, because you could interpret it as the universe isn't expanding at all.

My answer, the universe isn't expanding into anything, it is simply expanding.

It's not perfect but I can't take this anymore.

 

[Loren Booda]

Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.

Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.

Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."

 

[Mentat]

quantumcarl,

American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "semantic":

"Of or pertaining to meaning."

This is the kind of semanticism I was talking about, I had not idea that the word actually had to do with dual meanings.

Don't make Philosophy and Science mutually exclusive. They are not, and while mine is a Philosophical debate, it has a lot of basis on scientific principlesk - and this is what I meant by "scientific debate" (I also meant that the specific debate, of what the universe is "expanding into", was a scientific debate).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Pardon impossible, to send to Siberia.

Pardon, impossible to send to Siberia.

Nothing means "not anything," rather than "not...anything."

Say what? I caught the difference between the first two statements, but not between the last two ("not anything" and "not...anything").

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.

 

[Loren Booda]

The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

Well, mine is a scientific debate, even if it does involve some semanticism. Because of this, I disagree that someone's idea is "right" just because it happens to be their view. They are to present that view, but if it fails - under the weight of logical debate - they are wrong.

I have not seen your logic as yet – but only your view.

So you disagree that "nothing" can be replaced with "not anything", and still retain the meaning, while eliminating foolish debates about what "nothing" is?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
The equivalents "nothing" and "not everything" are not always equivalent to "not...everything." Thus "I can bring nothing to mind" is the same as "I can bring not anything in mind," but not "I can not bring anything to mind."

"I can bring not anything to mind" is grammatically flawed. It makes no sense.

Also, if you are saying that saying that there is not anything outside of the universe is not the same as saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, you may want to rethink your stance - as "isn't" is precisely equal to "is not".

The point I'm making is that when someone says that the universe is not expanding into anything, they might as well be saying that the universe is expanding into not anything, and the only reason that they don't is because this is a grammatically flawed sentence structure (at least in this language), and would probably confuse someone.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.

Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?

You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

No, I discount the fact that you think you're "logic" is right and everyone else's "view" is wrong.

Why do you think yours is the definitive answer?

You couldn't come up with a good argument as to why 'void' could not be used.

First off, I adress every argument, because every argument has merit. I don't just say, "I'm right, your wrong", and close my mind to new ideas.

Secondly, I did come up with a good argument as to why "void" couldn't be used; a void is something. All voids are within the universe, because the universe is everything. When someone answers the question, "what is the universe expanding into", with "nothing", they shouldn't mean that it is expanding into a void (because that's something), they should mean that it isn't expanding into anything.

 

[(Q)]

But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
But as I stated before, "void" is a state of non-existence therefore, it is a perfectly valid term. Anything that is non-extentent is not part of the universe.

Forgive my persistence, (Q), but look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing.

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing). If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing

True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).

I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.

If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.

Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.

Forgive my persistence, (Q)

No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

look at your wording: "Anything that is non-existent...". If it is non-existent it is not a thing

True, I should not have used the word “thing” in my explanation – but so goes the English language when trying to formulate explanations. You should focus more on the word “non-existent.”

This brings us back to my old point, that if a void is something for the universe to "expand into" then a void is something, and everything is part of the universe, so to say that the universe expands into something is contradictory (and a void is something).

Not according to the definitions I found which define a void as being a “state of non-existence,” which does not have the same meaning as “nothing” and most certainly does not mean something.

There is no state of non-exisistence, except conceptually. There is no place, wherein there is non-existence (nothing).

I disagree. The universe must expand into a state of non-existence in order for it to exist. If it does not expand into this state, then whatever the universe expands into must therefore exist, hence it is already part of the universe.

If there were a place, that place would be something (even if it's just empty space, like a "void"), and would thus not be a state of non-existence, but state of less existence.

Again I would have to disagree. A void is not a place – if it were, it would exist and could not be categorized as a state of non-existence. It would also not be a state of less existence – that would imply something does in fact exist, but there is less of it.

Space, consisting entirely of nothing, no particles or energy or anything whatsoever, can also be defined as a void – simply because space does not really exist, it is the distance between two objects. There is no space beyond our universe because there are no objects in which to provide a reference.

Forgive my persistence, (Q)

No problem, maybe we'll eventually define that which cannot be defined. ;)

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on. [Important point:] Space...is...something

 

[chosenone]

try this one on for size.2-d in 3-d thinking.if you take a circle or a square or a triangle on a piece of paper"2-d"and turn it side ways as to only see the side of it,the circle,square,and triangle would become a line,so these 3-d objects side ways are all lines,with this line you can make it bigger,or smaller,then when you turn it around,you've changed the shapes size without destroying it in the process.so what happens if you take a circle,turn it side ways,shrink the line as small as you can get it,when you turn it around,you will get a circle,inside the circle is space,no matter how small you make the line you will always get space inside the circle when you turn the line around!thus infinite space!but the fun part is when you get the cirlce with the space in the middle you put a dot in the middle,which is a line sideways then turn it around and get a cirlce,infinite space!

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on.

Either you are wrong or every dictionary is wrong. I wonder which it is?

Noun: the state of nonexistence.

http://define.ansme.com/words/v/void.html

noun: the state of nonexistence.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=void&ls=a

[Important point:] Space is something

Space is NOT something. Particles exist in space – the gravitational field permeates space – light travels through space – all matter in the universe is contained in space - but space is not something. Space is simply the distance between two objects.

From the same dictionaries:

Noun: an empty area (usually bounded in some way between things.)

Noun: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

To define a void as "a state of non-existence" is flawed, and it is what your argument is base on.

Either you are wrong or every dictionary is wrong. I wonder which it is?



[Important point:] Space is something

Space is NOT something. Particles exist in space – the gravitational field permeates space – light travels through space – all matter in the universe is contained in space - but space is not something. Space is simply the distance between two objects.

From the same dictionaries:

Noun: an empty area (usually bounded in some way between things.)

Noun: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.

The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity. Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...
The Classical view is that which your dictionaries describe, but that is not what modern science has yielded.

Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable) and I will take that definition above any dictionary.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity.

That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.

Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...

You are talking about things that exist in space and not of space itself. What is space made of? How is space active? How does space change?

Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable)

Then by all means, please describe for us all exactly what a void is. What is it made of? How do things exist in a void if a void is something tangible?

IF you cannot describe what a void is or what space is, then your logic is flawed and you are wrong.

I will take that definition above any dictionary.

Should we just chuck out all the dictionaries in favor of your definition?

You keep stating that a void IS something, yet have not explained exactly what that something is. Therefore, your argument has been that of argument from authority - and that is a standard fallacy.

 

[chosenone]

what if space was something,and particles don't exist in space,but inside space.what if energy pushes its way in existence from underneath the dimension of space,and are the displacement of space,like putting a object in water.the energy pushes space out of the way as it moves through it,leaving a wake as it passes by of collapsing spacetime behind it!

 

[Eh]

Q,

Space is just another name for the gravitational field. While less noticeable to us as matter, fields are just as real. In fact, in quantum theory fields are everything, and point particles owe their existence them. So it would seem that space is as much a thing as anything else in the universe.

John Gribbon wrote something about the reality of fields and particles in a recent book. The section might be online somewhere, and I will try to find it and post a link.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by (Q)
That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.

your on. now prove it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

The people who have written these dictionaries must be entirely unfamiliar with Relativity.

That has nothing to do with it. And besides, I would wager they are a lot smarter than you.

It has everything to do with it - didn't you even read my post? I never claimed to be more intelligent then the people who write dictionaries, or than anyone else. I do, however, have a fairly good knowledge of Relativity, and the afore-quoted dicionary definitions contradict it.

Relativity is based on space (and time) being not only something, but active, changing, warping, etc...

You are talking about things that exist in space and not of space itself. What is space made of? How is space active? How does space change?

I am talking about space itself (not the things in it, as you say). Relativity hinges on the fact that space (and time) are not just the back drop for energy and matter to act out their roles, but that spacetime itself is a key player. Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes. As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).

Quantum Mechanics defines a void as something (since no state is perfectly determinable)

Then by all means, please describe for us all exactly what a void is. What is it made of? How do things exist in a void if a void is something tangible?

IF you cannot describe what a void is or what space is, then your logic is flawed and you are wrong.

A scientific void is an area where there is no matter, and an indeterminate amount of energy (since the amount of energy, in any area, is undeterminable). The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space.

I will take that definition above any dictionary.

Should we just chuck out all the dictionaries in favor of your definition?

It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.

You keep stating that a void IS something, yet have not explained exactly what that something is. Therefore, your argument has been that of argument from authority - and that is a standard fallacy.

What do you mean by "argument from authority"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by kyleb
your on. now prove it.

I appreciate your support, kyleb, but concur that there are a great deal of people, who are more knowledgeable then I am.

 

[(Q)]

Mentat

Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes.

Nope, I want to hear it from you. You are the one making the claims – not relativity.

As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).

As I mentioned before, the gravitational field permeates space. Space is simply the distance between objects.

Well, it looks like you completely failed on those. Let's move on to your definition of a void.

The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space

That is the definition of a void that describes a state of nonexistence. Once anything enters that void, it is no longer considered a void, it becomes space because now there is reference of distance between objects. And currently, there is nothing in our universe that can be considered a void, is there?

Hold on a minute – that just so happens to describe what the universe is expanding into – a void.

It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.

Since I provided you with references, perhaps you could do the same to back up your argument.

Cite me references that clearly define space as being the gravitational field. As well, references to support that a void exists in our universe. I'll be happy to concede my position if you can.

 

[Eh]

From Sten Odenwald's "Ask an Astronomer" website at http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/qanda.html

What is space itself made of?

According to general relativity, 'space' is just another name for the gravitational field of the universe. As such, we stand in relation to space what photons of light stand in relation to the electromagnetic field. Space is just another physical field in nature, and at its smallest scales, it dissolves away into some kind of quantum 'haze' where our ideas of time and space no longer have much meaning.

Hope that helps. I'll try to dig up some links with more details.

 

[(Q)]

We carry with us two distinct conceptions of space. We invented measured space. We did so because it’s useful. But thanks to 17th Century thinkers such as Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes, we took measured space one step further and began to visualize a universal, three dimensional gridwork within which any thing can be precisely located. We have so abstracted this grid that we believe that the entire universe fits snugly inside of it. But the grid is supposedly always there, independent of the things in it. The grid, considered in itself, turns our attention away from the stuff of our world. Nevertheless, it has become the very definition of space according to our “default philosophy,” the set of beliefs about our world that is so deep that it feels like common sense.
http://www.smallpieces.com/space/space5c.html [/quote]


Hope that helps.

(edited to remove first reference)

 

[Ben-CS]

I'll just throw this out and let you raptors do the rest:

If necessary, we can always describe a given space as a surface existing in a higher-dimensional space.

 

[Eh]

Yes, that is the classic concept of empty space. But the point was that in modern physics, that definition is wrong.

Crackpots however, will continue to insist how relativity is incorrect because they can't let go of outdated concepts of space and time.

 

[(Q)]

Eh

I should have read more of that reference site I posted - it was full of crap.

I have no problem with relativity and could not refute it if I tried. It makes too much sense.

But I still stand my ground with the definition of space being the distance between objects.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Eh

I should have read more of that reference site I posted - it was full of crap.

I have no problem with relativity and could not refute it if I tried. It makes too much sense.

But I still stand my ground with the definition of space being the distance between objects.

Even in spite of actually getting a site that showed otherwise? Do you now disagree with QM, and expect to be right?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat

Read up on Relativity, it'll answer your questions of how space is active, and how it changes.

Nope, I want to hear it from you. You are the one making the claims – not relativity.

WRONG. It is relativity that shows that space warps and changes. What do you think gravity is?

As far as what it's made of; Quantum Mechanics postulates that it is a gravitational field (I advise you to study that as well, before contradicting it).

As I mentioned before, the gravitational field permeates space. Space is simply the distance between objects.

This is just wrong. I don't care what you've mentioned before, Quantum Mechanics states otherwise, and I'm going to have to go with the scientific opinion over yours, sorry.

Well, it looks like you completely failed on those. Let's move on to your definition of a void.

This kind of attitude isn't helping anything. I haven't failed until you can prove to me that your opinion of what space does and does not do is better than Einstein's.

The fact that a void is an area, clearly implies that it exists withing a certain amount of space

That is the definition of a void that describes a state of nonexistence. Once anything enters that void, it is no longer considered a void, it becomes space because now there is reference of distance between objects. And currently, there is nothing in our universe that can be considered a void, is there?

If there is a void, it is within the universe. The universe = everything. A void = something. All "somethings" are within "everything".

Hold on a minute – that just so happens to describe what the universe is expanding into – a void.

If you insist that are universe is expanding "into" something, then you have to contend with BB theorists who say otherwise.

It's not my definition. I've already shown you that two of the most rigorously defined theories (Relativity and QM) of physics are what provide "my definition", as you call it.

Since I provided you with references, perhaps you could do the same to back up your argument.

Cite me references that clearly define space as being the gravitational field. As well, references to support that a void exists in our universe. I'll be happy to concede my position if you can.

See Eh's post. I shouldn't have to post links, you should learn to pick up a book on a subject, before making up your own opinions, and stating them as fact.

I apologize for the slightly heated nature of this post. I hope that you will actually listen to what I'm saying, but if not I can only get more and more frustrated with talking to someone who is content to plug their ears and scream "SPACE IS EXPANDING INTO A VOID" over and over again.