What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[Moonrat]

It is impossible for empty, totally open and free space to exist. Space must be made of real points that must have distance between them, even logically. Points must have distance between them; and if logical points must have distance between them, then space has nine actual spatial dimensions, just like string theory predicts!

I like that

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's wrong. John's "accurate definition of a point" is contradicted by self-consistent measure theory. Actual spacetime may be continuous or discrete, but not because either state is logically inconsistent. It's an empirical question.

 

[sol2]

It's wrong. John's "accurate definition of a point" is contradicted by self-consistent measure theory. Actual spacetime may be continuous or discrete, but not because either state is logically inconsistent. It's an empirical question.

Ah thank you.

It's not always clear what I want to say, but from such a stanpoint then you have to assume a position. In the case of the universe there is something that underlies its existence. Here i might say the spacetime is flat and use zeropoint to demonstrate the vitality of this universe in its movement?

In this case we might say superstringtheory/M theory and the dynamics of the universe arise from these interpretations. Would this be correct?

 

[PRyckman]

we are on the same page, nothing too is a mystery ( a something) that niether I nor you understand.

I'm saying I understand what nothing is. So it is not a mystery to me.

P-man is saying another universe provided the background for this universe to work in, like, we are standing on the other universe.

Correct, but that is not the nothing I'm talking about.

Gravity doesn’t take time but acts instantaneously all over the universe.

I'm pretty sure E=mc^2 proves that gravity only propegates at roughly light speed.

It's wrong. John's "accurate definition of a point" is contradicted by self-consistent measure theory

Though your vocabulary exceeds mine, I believe you are saying, that if there is no distance, then there's no distance, plain and simple. Which I agree with

Cmon guys what all with these crazy theories about nothing. NOTHING IS NOTHING. There is no theory better than that sentence. Theres no quarks there's no time, there's no points or dimension, there's no energy there's no superstrings, there's no gravity light or anything at all. Nothing is nonexistant. To put any type of thought into it is a waste of time.

If you guys don't believe I understand the concept of nothing then look at this equation.
Lets say Energy equals zero, nevermind anything else
D=E(t)
if energy equals zero then so does distance. Time can be whatever the hell you want because it doesn't matter. But it must be either infinite or zero.

 

[Moonrat]

PRycman, nothing is no-thing..yes

No-thing is mystery, for only no-thing can describe it..

you define nothing as 'nothingness'

you know that it cannot be defined any other way or be quantified or understood by any other thing other than 'nothing'

it is not distinquisable inside of itself

you know this, but you can't see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?

we are debating semantics, for if you understand nothing to be nothing, that does not mean you disregard it...nothing 'is' it is not 'absense' but the thing that is nothingness itself...

you cannot show me a 'nothing' I cannot show you a 'nothing' for 'nothing' cannot be represented...

 

[toloXXX]

PRycman, nothing is no-thing..yes

No-thing is mystery, for only no-thing can describe it..

you define nothing as 'nothingness'

you know that it cannot be defined any other way or be quantified or understood by any other thing other than 'nothing'

it is not distinquisable inside of itself

you know this, but you can't see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?

we are debating semantics, for if you understand nothing to be nothing, that does not mean you disregard it...nothing 'is' it is not 'absense' but the thing that is nothingness itself...

you cannot show me a 'nothing' I cannot show you a 'nothing' for 'nothing' cannot be represented...

Brad !
To me,
Nothing is actually everything, everything also means nothing
things come into existence when humans can 'see', 'feel',...'sense' them. but if we can't sense, see, etc them, that doesNOT mean they are not existing, or they are nothing, if they are not NOTHING, they are THINGS, since they ARE THINGS, and it will depend on each person's viewpoints about THINGS, we have a scale for THINGS and generally speaking, we have EVERYTHING.


As a side note, i know you posted right over here to draw some one attention, right ?
I am trying to help you...
If you want to use people's tone, you should read their posts a little more, Brad !
Like what i have explained, if you should go and learn more about religions rather than abuse people like that...
If I don't see face by face or any signs that can tell me it is true, that guy is just a follow-up monkey.

BTW, philosophy is a good subject, learning it more can help you be a better person.

See you around right on your board, I will come and make many questions...

[i]FIONA[/i]

[edit]So sorry, I forgot to include my signature[edit]

 

[Moonrat]

Brad !

umm, I'm not Brad!

To me,
Nothing is actually everything, everything also means nothing
things come into existence when humans can 'see', 'feel',...'sense' them. but if we can't sense, see, etc them, that doesNOT mean they are not existing, or they are nothing, if they are not NOTHING, they are THINGS, since they ARE THINGS, and it will depend on each person's viewpoints about THINGS, we have a scale for THINGS and generally speaking, we have EVERYTHING.

Now they we cleared up that confusion about who I am, yes, everything also can be no-thing or mystery until we define it and distinguish it from ourselves (objective-subjective)

nothing is the thing that is no-thing!

I do hope Brad agrees!

there is subjective nothingness and objective nothingness, and I think, although I may be mistaken, that this thread is about 'objective nothingness'


tootles! say hi to Brad for me!

Moonrat

 

[PRyckman]

you know this, but you can't see how this 'no-thing' is a mystery?

I don't see how something that we just agreed on explaining is a mystery.

Mystery: "One that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the understanding; an enigma"------ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mystery

It is not a mystery because I understand the concept of nothing.

 

[toloXXX]

umm, I'm not Brad!

Now they we cleared up that confusion about who I am, yes, everything also can be no-thing or mystery until we define it and distinguish it from ourselves (objective-subjective)

nothing is the thing that is no-thing!

I do hope Brad agrees!

there is subjective nothingness and objective nothingness, and I think, although I may be mistaken, that this thread is about 'objective nothingness'

tootles! say hi to Brad for me!

Moonrat

Brad, you know why I colored red the word above, in the quote ?
Only Brad will put an exclamation mark at the end of his name ? You rewrote what I wrote but you still put it up over there...Wanna show off. If you are not Brad, you won't put it right there right next to 'd' whereas I was deliberately gave it a space...:p
You know I don't like you at all, because you are not lovely.

BTW, tell Jeffrey Richter to stop using so many usernames to make people misunderstand each other...
Give you another hint, if Mick wants to use a smiley, he would use it immediately, not using stuff like :-D, :-) :pipsrioueotdskhgkudgo and his tone would sound 100% different.

I should have known about this place sooner, this is a great place for civilized people, academic students...
You, out of place, old monkey !. I have registered some other usernames there at your sites, please be happy to help Nina, okay ?

-Hometown-Fiona,

Back to OP, as I already said, nothing is everything, everything is nothing, an example you can see right here is that, this moonrat said he isnot Brad, BUT what if he is Brad!, who knows ?
I know, and we now all know...THIS MEANS, from NOTHING to EVERYTHING or vice a versa, there is actually no boundary at all.

 

[PRyckman]

I think you guys are out of it, nothing doesn't exist by definition. You shouldn't even have to be told that.

 

[toloXXX]

I think you guys are out of it, nothing doesn't exist by definition. You shouldn't even have to be told that.

Pryckman , I know please understand, just want to give him a lesson, this is not his place, we are safe...

Please everybody stop posting for a week in this thread...only a week
I would like all the people who joined this forum, to read this Moonrat-Bradley L jones, or (avi), if you keep posting, this thread will get to another page and no one can read him then.

 

[Moonrat]

Brad, you know why I colored red the word above, in the quote ?
Only Brad will put an exclamation mark at the end of his name ? You rewrote what I wrote but you still put it up over there...Wanna show off. If you are not Brad, you won't put it right there right next to 'd' whereas I was deliberately gave it a space...:p
You know I don't like you at all, because you are not lovely.

lady, I don't know what the hell your talkin' 'bout and I aint no Brad...

dig?

Moonrat

 

[Moonrat]

I think you guys are out of it, nothing doesn't exist by definition. You shouldn't even have to be told that.

My friend, this is a difficult concept to grasp, because, well, words don't really do the concept much justice, not nearly as much justice as experience has.

When we move into areas such as 'nothing', it is hard not to stumble upon paradox after paradox...

So let's be clear. There is the 'non-existant', which cannot even exist as idea or concept...if this is which you define as 'nothing' then so be it, I can see that concept too, and there are roads shall part.

If, however, you are defining a co-ordinate of universe, and have a point, center, circumfrence, or vector that includes 'nothing' in each equation, I can assure you that mystery fulfills that end of the bargain far greater than the above 'nothing'

What you are referring to is only a subjective co-ordinate based only in conceptual representation (thus almost contradicting itself right there, but hey, paradox is unavoidable)

You cannot distinguish 'nothing' from outside of yourself, using the above definition..

Now, there is always a factor infinite and unknown, x. Therefore, there is a perspective in which one can see that 'all one cannot see' is the mysterious 'no-thing' that could and exceed any and all possiblities that one may have in their thinking about it.

Indeed, any Grand Unified Theory of Everything must contain a working co-ordinate for this 'no-thing' or mystery.


If it doesnt, than it is impossible, I suggest, for it to hold up to scrutiny after serious thought.

Who was it, Von Nueman, who said a computer cannot model itself because information cannot be accurate of itself in a closed system or something like that..I dunno, I ferget, same thing though..

Or, perhaps I myself may have a false idea, but if I do, I request you explain where in my co-ordinates I have made an error.

Keep it simple too because I'm slow.

Thank You !

Moonrat

 

[PRyckman]

There is the 'non-existant', which cannot even exist as idea or concept...if this is which you define as 'nothing' then so be it, I can see that concept too

Yea that's what I define it as, glad you understand.
It needs no further explanation.
Simple things are always better.

 

[Stevo]

How can something not even exist as idea or concept?

 

[PRyckman]

It can exist in your mind, which is why your trying to prove it exists.
But it can never exist in reality, again by definition.

 

[Stevo]

It can exist in your mind, which is why your trying to prove it exists.
But it can never exist in reality, again by definition.

Why can't existence be a contingent property of objects, in general?

For instance Pegasus doesn't exist physically, but isn't it also an object in a different sense, as a mythological creation?

 

[PRyckman]

yes mythological meaning not real

And yes existence is a contingent property of objects, but nothing isn't an object

 

[Stevo]

yes mythological meaning not real

And yes existence is a contingent property of objects, but nothing isn't an object

Why isn't nothing an object?

 

[PRyckman]

an apple is an object, an absence of an apple is not an object.

 

[Stevo]

an apple is an object, an absence of an apple is not an object.

Ok, so let A be the proposition: There is an apple.

Then, ~A would be the proposition: It is not the case that there is an apple.

If we allow for A to be a proposition which has an objectual reference, why do we not allow for ~A to be a proposition which has an objectual reference?

 

[PRyckman]

your putting too much thought into it, no matter what definition we could possibly get from this it is irrelevant because it doesn't exist.
if you want to represent it mathmatically i'd say here we have an apple 1
and here we do not 0

 

[Stevo]

But you are assuming that empirical things are the only things which we can legitimately call objects, which is precisely what I am questioning.

 

[PRyckman]

no I am saying that in nothing there is not even space time or dimension itself

 

[Stevo]

So how does that entail that nothing is not an object?

 

[PRyckman]

what's the opposite of having an object?

 

[Stevo]

what's the opposite of having an object?

Well that's an interesting question...

The obvious answer is "Not having an object".

But then we are just talking about the negation of a proposition, and why should we claim that one proposition refers while its negation doesn't?

An answer may be that it's a matter of perspective, or a matter of defining our domain, and that there is no maximal domain. For if there were, then we could construct a proposition with the universal quantifier, and the negation of that proposition would fail to refer to any object. But the above question would again apply.

What is the ontological significance of the negation?

I'm going to head off, but I'll say this: I'm really just playing devils advocate. I prefer having a "robust sense of reality" (as Russell said). But it's worthwhile pointing out that constructing a sensible theory of propositions which claims that nothing is not an object is not so obvious or easy. Conversely, claiming nothing is an object can perhaps be implemented in a sensible theory of propositions.

 

[PRyckman]

I hear you there, But I really think it just stops at not having an object.

 

[Messiah]

For clarity, it is important to note the connotation (there are two) about which you are commenting.

Nothing - in the abstract - has no definition. It is a fiction. It doesn't exist.
Nothing - the value of Ø - is the null value. It is defined. It does exist.

 

[Atrius]

I may be crossing subjects, but isn't there no such thing as "nothing" because where there was belived to be "nothing" there was dark matter. If i am wrong, i believe that there is nothing that can be called "nothing". it just does not exist to our minds. Its just like trying to think up a flat object that is perfectly flat when you look at it from all angles, even when you go around.

 

[zeta101]

not sure if this is actually true, its just my interpretation of things and what i believe is true. Have you every heard people try and be clever and say "if the universe is everything and its expanding, then what is it expanding into?"

Ive never had a problem with this because the way i see it is that a vacuum in space is not nothing, even if you disregard particles that can pop in and out of existence for minute amounts of time, i still think there is "something" to a vacuum. Space itself is something, or should i say space-time...i mean doesn't space-time bend due to the effects of mass and energy?! so surely "empty" space or a vacuum has to be something.

The true nothingness is what exists outside of the universe...it is void not only of matter and energy but of dimension and time...for this reason you can say how big the nothingness is outside the universe, you can't say it extends for an infinite distance, because "distance" has no meaning without space-time...the same goes for time...you can't say that this viod has always exisisted, ie before big bang, and you can't say it will continue to exist forever, ie after big crunch or whatever...because time has no meaning in the void.

I think that matter and energy are closely connected to space-time, so i don't think matter or energy could even exist outside of our universe and in the void without a space-time canvas to paint them onto.

hmmm, just spent 10 minutes talking about nothing :D

 

[sol2]

Discrete Objects are Artifacts

I may be crossing subjects, but isn't there no such thing as "nothing" because where there was belived to be "nothing" there was dark matter. If i am wrong, i believe that there is nothing that can be called "nothing". it just does not exist to our minds. Its just like trying to think up a flat object that is perfectly flat when you look at it from all angles, even when you go around.

The understanding of Dark matter as a measure is good choice again as I have reiterated earlier. Its a empirical question, of what can exist and from where it began.

If one assumes such a position then in this context the primordial basis of the universe comes into question. It's strength and weakness in a energy detrmination?

Also, might we point to the brain's matter and and call it a souls artifact, when it is capable of mind?

This would run in contradiction to evolution? Might we see then where dimensional significance could have been entangled in these matters How is it mind could direct?

It would raise the question of what the mind may gather from the pool of ideas and project them into reality? Some would say then that ideas come from nothing, or they gather in neural connection and spark recognition?

If this were true then, what would the cosmological significance of the mind be when one looks at Kravtsov computer models as string models and neural correlates?

http://mind-brain.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4041

Just thought I would add it for consideration.

 

[zeta101]

btw to those that are trying to mathematically describe nothingness, if you are talking about the absense of an object on the sapce-time "canvas" then i suppose you can use zero. But In the void of nothingness you can't quantify anything, so i don't think you can use mathematics or numbers to describe it

 

[sol2]

When is a Pipe a Pipe?

btw to those that are trying to mathematically describe nothingness, if you are talking about the absense of an object on the sapce-time "canvas" then i suppose you can use zero. But In the void of nothingness you can't quantify anything, so i don't think you can use mathematics or numbers to describe it

Again I would draw your attention to this link for consideration

Andrey Kravtsov

Zeta101 said,"The true nothingness is what exists outside of the universe...it is void not only of matter and energy but of dimension and time...for this reason you can say how big the nothingness is outside the universe, you can't say it extends for an infinite distance, because "distance" has no meaning without space-time...the same goes for time...you can't say that this viod has always exisisted, ie before big bang, and you can't say it will continue to exist forever, ie after big crunch or whatever...because time has no meaning in the void."

There cannot be no outside the universe. The computer model describes for us an artifact of those higher dimensions? Do you see?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?13@63.hEg8bi18Uyt.0@.1dde6c2f/19

 

[zeta101]

i don't really understand what your trying to say, but you say there cannot be an "outside" of the universe...and i agree, but my post is still valid...my post does not say there is an outside of the universe, it says the opposite! that's there is nothing. That is how i have chosen to define nothingness