• What is nothing?
    70 replies, posted
To kickstart the debate here's a video of the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate from 2013, which talks about this subject. You're obviously not obliged to watch to post, but if you feel like you're not sure where to start or want some scientists to give their opinions, it's a really good watch. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8[/media] I guess nothing is impossible because if it's nowhere in time or nowhere in space and it doesn't contain or is made up of any information, then it can't even be comprehended and therefor it doesn't exist. Not even 0 represents true nothing because even 0 is something.
The state of having no state is still a state. The state of is still a state. True nothing (I'll call it the zero state) can not be expressed by any existent thing since expressing the zero state would mean knowing the zero state as a state, which is contradictory to the concept itself, but there's a workaround to this. Any philosophy or thing which'd invalidate it by expressing it would be destroyed and "not known" if the zero state came to be, as well as the tracts of time in which those entities and philosophies and concepts existed. It is pretty much the only concept that exists as a physical and philosophical absolute that can not be disputed or invalidated in any way, shape, or form. It isn't impossible to obtain a zero state, as least as far as I know, but even infinite concepts and things would be eliminated and "not known" in any type of physical or metaphysical format. There'd be nothing, not even the state of nothing, and it'd be absolutely irreversible.
We can't really deal with absolute nothingness, so we kind of have to assume that the universe and whatever structure(s) contain it simply exist without an external cause. Scientific explanations for the reason why there is something rather than nothing always have to assume a fundamental set of rules that govern the nature reality, for if new rules to explain them are introduced those rules would require explanation too. While the fundamental set of rules may be reduced many times as our understanding of the universe improves, there must be a stage where we can reduce no further as we have no capacity to understand more or because that set of rules cannot be derived from nothing. Theological explanations fail to a far greater degree when attempting to explain all that is existent, because they assume the eternal existence of their god(s) in the place of a far simpler set of fundamental rules. Rather than reduce the apparent complexity of the world we experience, belief in a creator god increases it. It introduces an unnecessary entity that is never explained itself as a substitute for a set of fundamental rules that also cannot be explained but we know to exist. A big problem is we struggle to imagine structures of reality that don't involve one dimension of time or involve more than three dimensions of space. We tend to think of the origin of this universe as being "before" this universe, but if this universe is contained within a structure of higher (or no) dimensions then our perception of time would not apply. Something can't come out of absolutely nothing because that nothing requires the passage of time, some dimension along which that nothing is not homogeneous and therefore not nothing. The existence of nothing seems to arrive at contradictions, so we have to assume that nothing cannot exist or that we can't understand the nature of nothing.
It's anything that isn't something.
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;43480653]It's anything that isn't something.[/QUOTE] Exept then it is the lack of something which is still in it's absolute essence something. Those were very good points you guys put forth.
A bit of a weird subject of debate, I can't say much. But it oddly reminds me of the sound of silence.. But you can have truly nothing, can't you? You can suck the air out of a jar and create a vacuum of space, at least in theory. But not quite in practice..
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;43485287]A bit of a weird subject of debate, I can't say much. But it oddly reminds me of the sound of silence.. But you can have truly nothing, can't you? You can suck the air out of a jar and create a vacuum of space, at least in theory.[/QUOTE] Yes but even if you create a vacuum there are still virtual particles and the like occupying that space that is supposively nothing, then there is the space itself.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43485298]Yes but even if you create a vacuum there are still virtual particles and the like occupying that space that is supposively nothing, then there is the space itself.[/QUOTE] Huh, you quoted me before I had apparently ninja-edited the "But not quite in practice" part in the end. But indeed, vacuums are not actually vacuums. The closest thing to "nothingness" that I could possibly think of would probably be some space (like the universe) 100% annihilated by dark matter. But even then that would be arguably quite something.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;43487705]Huh, you quoted me before I had apparently ninja-edited the "But not quite in practice" part in the end. But indeed, vacuums are not actually vacuums. The closest thing to "nothingness" that I could possibly think of would probably be some space (like the universe) 100% annihilated by dark matter. But even then that would be arguably quite something.[/QUOTE] Surely there would still be quantum fluctuations?
[QUOTE=Ziks;43488522]Surely there would still be quantum fluctuations?[/QUOTE] Quantum fluctuations huh.. Yeah, quite possibly.
well something I took from that debate in the OP in particular is the existence of quantum phenomena creating a negative gravitational pressure that pushes things apart causing space to expand, with seemingly no cause beyond quantum effects. This shows that even the most empty of space is clouded with some form of potential particle, or potential energy. Even in a negative state energy system there is a chance or potential of energy occurring from these virtual particles as it were. Nothing is empty. Which then makes me think about dark matter and dark energy and their place in our universe as the overriding vast amount of material in our universe being dark matter/energy. Can nothing be a thing in our universe? What if even in the most void of areas there is still a quantifiable something? Then we must turn our gaze beyond the walls of our universe and look at what might be nothing out there, what might something and nothing be in comparison outside of our universe. I don't think we're ready for that question yet, but i think it's important.
True nothingness does not exist... The only type of nothingness is philosophical which is basically no space, no time, no dimensions, no gravity, no laws of physics and no blackness. This is absolute nothingness which cannot exist. When Dr Lawrence Krauss talks about nothing, he doesn't mean nothing like the nothing I mentioned above because, and I quote "In quantum mechanics when you have nothing, you'll always get something" but for this to be true you need to laws of quantum mechanics and there needs to be some sort of framework for those laws to exist in. True absolute nothing simply does not exist.
It's weird to sit and say that true absolute nothing does not exist because like ofcourse it can't exist it's nothing after all, just find that a bit funny
Nothing is just word we can use to describe an environment, object, situation etc. that we cannot fathom intellectually, usually this is something beyond our comprehension (both physically such as our bodies (eyes for example), and mentally through our intelligence and intellect). One could also say that nothing is state of lifelessness such as a vacuum but thus, this is a conundrum. Even something that could be described as nothingness is still something as of being stated as nothing.
Well this is easy (as far as I can tell): Nothing is outside of the universe. There is no fields, there is no fermions, there is no bosons, there is no time, and there is no space. Absolutely nothing can't exist in our universe, because everything in our universe exists. Of course it depends on how you define nothing, that's why this topic must be so controversial.
I guess the difficulty someone may have with nothing is that we can never experience it. It has no taste, touch, smell, appearance or sound, or any distinction between moments in time because time itself does not exist. We tend to understand things by imagining how one would experience them, but in order to do that for nothing is as impossible as experiencing what it was like for you personally before you were conceived. You did not exist, there was nothing there to experience and no-one to experience it.
If we take a slice of space smaller than a Planck length, do we have a piece of nothing?
[QUOTE=Stopper;43511206]If we take a slice of space smaller than a Planck length, do we have a piece of nothing?[/QUOTE] Not if it has any dimensions at all, or has a position within space, or exists for some amount of time.
[QUOTE=Stopper;43511206]If we take a slice of space smaller than a Planck length, do we have a piece of nothing?[/QUOTE] Current physics can't tell us what's going on below the Planck length, so no one can really answer that yet.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43510670]I guess the difficulty someone may have with nothing is that we can never experience it. It has no taste, touch, smell, appearance or sound, or any distinction between moments in time because time itself does not exist. We tend to understand things by imagining how one would experience them, but in order to do that for nothing is as impossible as experiencing what it was like for you personally before you were conceived. You did not exist, there was nothing there to experience and no-one to experience it.[/QUOTE] I actually disagree. I feel I have achieved this more than once. I do it as you describe also, thinking of what it was like before you were born. This will be hard to explain and it is not easy to do. I start out where I am, then I slowly start floating up in my mind. I would see the earth, pass the moon, planets, galaxies and keep going until blackness. For a second or two I feel I have been able to experience nothing. I would not know how to describe it, and I am sure you can argue whether it was nothing or not, but I truly feel it was. It is an amazing feeling. Like I said it is difficult to experience it for more than a couple seconds before you are shot back into reality. I am sure I am not the only one to have ever experienced this. There must be more people.
[QUOTE=Jitterz;43512745]I actually disagree. I feel I have achieved this more than once. I do it as you describe also, thinking of what it was like before you were born. This will be hard to explain and it is not easy to do. I start out where I am, then I slowly start floating up in my mind. I would see the earth, pass the moon, planets, galaxies and keep going until blackness. For a second or two I feel I have been able to experience nothing. I would not know how to describe it, and I am sure you can argue whether it was nothing or not, but I truly feel it was. It is an amazing feeling. Like I said it is difficult to experience it for more than a couple seconds before you are shot back into reality. I am sure I am not the only one to have ever experienced this. There must be more people.[/QUOTE] I would consider that pretty much from the definition of "nothing" it can never be experienced. No percepts can be created from nothing, so no memories are stored of nothing, and so no recollections can be made of nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, including experience. Even if you are aware of a period of time with no external percepts, you are aware of time passing which contradicts that nothing has no time. If you tried to recollect a period yesterday when you experienced literally nothing from 5:00-6:00, no memories would exist and so you couldn't recollect it. It would be as if time suddenly jumped from 4:59:59 to 6:00:00. You may be right, but this is my interpretation of nothing. I don't want to sound patronising, but all you need to believe that you experienced something is the belief that you experienced it in the way you imagine. What you described seems to contradict my understanding of nothing, although it is quite close.
[QUOTE=Jitterz;43512745]I actually disagree. I feel I have achieved this more than once. I do it as you describe also, thinking of what it was like before you were born. This will be hard to explain and it is not easy to do. I start out where I am, then I slowly start floating up in my mind. I would see the earth, pass the moon, planets, galaxies and keep going until blackness. For a second or two I feel I have been able to experience nothing. I would not know how to describe it, and I am sure you can argue whether it was nothing or not, but I truly feel it was. It is an amazing feeling. Like I said it is difficult to experience it for more than a couple seconds before you are shot back into reality. I am sure I am not the only one to have ever experienced this. There must be more people.[/QUOTE] I have done this a few times as well. It takes a lot of concentration because you're trying not to think of anything. I've also had dreams where I look up at the sky and I see the stars start to come closer together and I see the space bending and stretching... Then all the stars start to come together to form one large star and eventually I feel myself being pulled in and I realise that the universe is collapsing. Pretty awesome.
Hm. I guess defining nothing and thus making it something relies on the assumption that you are correct. Defining a horse as a horse doesn't mean you're correct as it's not [I]universally[/I] a horse. Simply a horse as far as a human can recognise the shape and label it with language. With no [I]universally[/I] correct definition to describe the horse nor the matter it is made up of, it is just as viable to state that the horse is nothing. All definitions are [I]universally[/I] incorrect.
There is no nothing. Nothing is the absence of something. Nothing is a something. There physically can be a cube of nothing in a space. But since nothing is something: There is always something in a place. There is no nothing. Bam, now I've got something to take into English class tomorrow for extra credit.
Scientists always say the universe is expanding but I've always wondered... what lies beyond the part of the universe which has not expanded to yet. Could that be nothing? :P
People like me are nothing
Everything.
[QUOTE=jackbliss;43516444]Scientists always say the universe is expanding but I've always wondered... what lies beyond the part of the universe which has not expanded to yet. Could that be nothing? :P[/QUOTE] Technically yes because if the universe IS everything, then the universe doesn't need to expand into something... because the universe is everything and so it simply expands itself without the need to expand into another object
Nothing is obviously not a thing. Nothing is a quantificational operator. To illustrate this, let B be the predicate 'is better than sex', then 'Nothing is better than sex is (Nothing(x))(Bx) 'No x is B' or ¬∃x(Bx) 'There is no x such that Bx' , which is the same thing. In fact, for any first order predicate φ, ¬∃x(φx) ≡ (Nothing(x))(φx)
Nothing is just a word.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.