The human mind is not at a state of intelligence in which it can cope with the idea of nothingness, or unexplainable things that may or may not be real or exist. Perhaps nothingness is just the end of where our brain perceives existence, or maybe there is no such thing as nothing, as no matter how you put it, there is always something there, whether it is a solid form of mass or something like light, sound, and temperature. Either way, I don't think anyone will ever truly [I]consciously[/I] know what nothingness is, though we know what the idea of nothing is.
[QUOTE=Satane;43561396]If there was nothing outside our universe, wouldn't there just be nothing rather than [I]something[/I]? Nothing is a much simpler concept than the existence of our complex universe, we might just exist because it's not even possible for there to be nothing.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if there was nothing that would include no rules or restrictions, so everything that could possibly exist would just exist because there would be no laws of conservation to stop them from existing.
Some people seem to think that nothing is an object... As already mentioned nothing is the absence of something. The fact that we are here is proof that nothing doesn't exist. Nothing cannot apply to regions... either there is something or there isn't. Sinse we are here... obviously nothing does not exist.
Did nothing exist at some point? Possibly but I don't believe so.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43562643]The fact that we are here is proof that nothing doesn't exist. Nothing cannot apply to regions... either there is something or there isn't. Sinse we are here... obviously nothing does not exist.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how this follows at all.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43567443]I don't see how this follows at all.[/QUOTE]
What is it you're having trouble understanding exactly? Nothing is the absence of something, sinse we are here, nothing cannot be true. I really cannot put it any simpler.
Nothing is nothing because if it is something then it can't be nothing.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43569419]What is it you're having trouble understanding exactly? Nothing is the absence of something, sinse we are here, nothing cannot be true. I really cannot put it any simpler.[/QUOTE]
Outside of what exists is nothing. Nothing isn't really a contradictory concept, if anything it is the most certain thing there is. It's the only concept that requires no explanation, no information to represent its state. Nothing isn't an entity that can exist or not, it is a concept used to describe what doesn't exist.
I suppose it depends on the context of the word. But I feel nothing is the complete absence of existence.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43569469]Outside of what exists is nothing. Nothing isn't really a contradictory concept, if anything it is the most certain thing there is. It's the only concept that requires no explanation, no information to represent its state. Nothing isn't an entity that can exist or not, it is a concept used to describe what doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
OK maybe I was a little quick to say that nothing cannot be defined to regions so I do agree with you that if the universe is all there is, then there is nothing on the outside. So with regards to the people who think the universe was created from nothing, would you argue that this nothing outside the universe is capable of becoming something?
If you're imagining nothing the same way I am now then do you think nothing has the potential to be something?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43478814][...]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8[/media]
[/QUOTE]
And then they accuse philosophers of talking nonsense. This is actually very funny. Of course there is no such [I]thing[/I] as 'the' nothing or 'a' nothing or whatever. Actually, the word 'nothing' is not normally used to denote objects, they got it all wrong. Here are some true sentences which exemplify the use of the word 'nothing':
(1) Nothing is taller than itself.
(2) Nothing is smaller than itself.
(3) Nothing is an even number and an odd number at the same time.
(4) There is nothing in the fridge.
(5) Nothing is perfect.
From these is it obvious that 'nothing' is not used to denote an object (the way in which "Nothing" must be interpreted in (5) is very different from the way in which "Socrates" must be interpreted in "Socrates is perfect".)
[QUOTE=matsta;43579404]
(4) There is nothing in the fridge.
[/QUOTE]
I forget what this is called when you say things like this but it's paradoxical to say "There is nothing in the fridge" because you're turning the word nothing into an object.
We need a new word for describing nothing. The true way to phrase the sentence is "There isn't anything in the fridge" or "The fridge doesn't contain anything" and now the sentence works just fine.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43569419]What is it you're having trouble understanding exactly? Nothing is the absence of something, sinse we are here, nothing cannot be true. I really cannot put it any simpler.[/QUOTE]
I think I get what you're saying, but I'm still trying to process it damn
[editline]18th January 2014[/editline]
So you are saying because there is something here it doesn't matter if there is nothing "over there" or whatever, cause there is still something here after all?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43583969]I think I get what you're saying, but I'm still trying to process it damn
[editline]18th January 2014[/editline]
So you are saying because there is something here it doesn't matter if there is nothing "over there" or whatever, cause there is still something here after all?[/QUOTE]
That is what I was saying at first but you raised a really great argument when you mentioned that there is nothing outside of the universe and so nothing does exist in a sense. Or words to that effect.
I still think it's philosophical... As far as I'm concerned, if something exists then nothing cannot exist because there is something. But I kinda changed my mind earlier when the point was raised about "Nothing is outside the universe" because it's a valid thing to say.
Assuming for sake of argument that god exists and is eternal then what was before god? Then answer would be nothing. So nothing when you use it in this context does exist.
I don't know to be honest I've even confused myself now lol. I think it's the word which is the problem, the word nothing is not properly defined in my opinion.
Nothing does not exist, as it is a thing. Which means it does exist.
wat
Nothing, derived from No-Thing is therefore the absence of anything
[QUOTE=matsta;43579404]And then they accuse philosophers of talking nonsense. This is actually very funny. Of course there is no such [I]thing[/I] as 'the' nothing or 'a' nothing or whatever. Actually, the word 'nothing' is not normally used to denote objects, they got it all wrong. Here are some true sentences which exemplify the use of the word 'nothing':
(1) Nothing is taller than itself.
(2) Nothing is smaller than itself.
(3) Nothing is an even number and an odd number at the same time.
(4) There is nothing in the fridge.
(5) Nothing is perfect.
From these is it obvious that 'nothing' is not used to denote an object (the way in which "Nothing" must be interpreted in (5) is very different from the way in which "Socrates" must be interpreted in "Socrates is perfect".)[/QUOTE]
Well, that's because (at least to me) there's two meanings to the word nothing
What you're describing here is the more colloquial term of 'nothing', where we've learned to use the term 'nothing' to denote 'insignificance' or to demonstrate impossibility. To use what the poster above has used, the first 1-3 sentences you've provided are using nothing to mean "No Things". No Things are taller than themselves. No Things are an even number and an odd number. Etc. The 4th one is more "No Something". You're looking for a specific thing when you look in the fridge, you're probably looking for food or drink. There's something in the fridge, but its "Not something" that you want.
5th one is a bit tougher because perfection is a concept, rather than an entity. You could mean that perfection is essentially defined by nothingness, so you'd be using nothing to denote the more metaphysical sense of "Not any-thing". Or you could be using nothing to denote the sense in the first three, "No things are perfect". Perfection is essentially unobtainable, so there are "No things" that we can point to that contain it.
What they're talking about in the video, which they basically demonstrate at the start of the video is a veeeery much religion-based and semi-metaphysical definition of nothing.
On an evolutionary level, we've never [I]needed[/I] to be able to comprehend nothing because its not useful. Not only that, but unlike with other concepts where we originate from a position that we might find useful to survival, the discussion of nothing is far more complex.
Basically to bring it back to your post, nothing is interesting because it can be used in the same way that Socrates is used in the sentence "Socrates is perfect"
oh shit having watched more, john holt basically says some of this.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43516899]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[/QUOTE]
Nobody even responded to my first post. I said that nothing would be outside of the universe. Please someone either acknowledge this or give me a rebuttal.
[QUOTE=Satane;43594080]Even if it does make it a thing, it's still the absence of everything which is nothing.[/QUOTE]
The absence of everything is a thing though.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43585672]That is what I was saying at first but you raised a really great argument when you mentioned that there is nothing outside of the universe and so nothing does exist in a sense. Or words to that effect.
I still think it's philosophical... As far as I'm concerned, if something exists then nothing cannot exist because there is something. But I kinda changed my mind earlier when the point was raised about "Nothing is outside the universe" because it's a valid thing to say.
Assuming for sake of argument that god exists and is eternal then what was before god? Then answer would be nothing. So nothing when you use it in this context does exist.
I don't know to be honest I've even confused myself now lol. I think it's the word which is the problem, the word nothing is not properly defined in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I think you have a very good point though, if there is something than there cannot be nothing because even if there is nothing "out there" (outside our universe) then our universe is still something and then that nothingness would not be [I]all there is[/I], our universe would still [I]be[/I] so then there is the universe and a lack of a universe and if you would take everything+everything that isn't everything (nothing) you would not end up with nothing because there would be our universe.
It's weird to explain but it seems to me to make some sense, but then not all that is true makes sense and not all that makes sense is true.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43583155]I forget what this is called when you say things like this but it's paradoxical to say "There is nothing in the fridge" because you're turning the word nothing into an object.
We need a new word for describing nothing. The true way to phrase the sentence is "There isn't anything in the fridge" or "The fridge doesn't contain anything" and now the sentence works just fine.[/QUOTE]
My point is that when you say (4) you are actually saying [I]that[/I]. You can always rephrase the sentences containing the word nothing so that they say the same without using that word. When you say, for example, "Nothign is an F" (let F be any predicate), this is equivalent to saying "Everything is such that it is not an F". This also works for the following sentences:
[QUOTE]Nothing is outside the universe.[/QUOTE]
Everything is such that it is not outside of the universe.
[QUOTE]There was nothing before god.[/QUOTE]
Everything is such that it was not before god.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;43583155][...]What you're describing here is the more colloquial term of 'nothing'[...]
What they're talking about in the video, which they basically demonstrate at the start of the video is a veeeery much religion-based and semi-metaphysical definition of nothing.
On an evolutionary level, we've never needed to be able to comprehend nothing because its not useful. Not only that, but unlike with other concepts where we originate from a position that we might find useful to survival, the discussion of nothing is far more complex.
Basically to bring it back to your post, nothing is interesting because it can be used in the same way that Socrates is used in the sentence "Socrates is perfect"[/QUOTE]
What I claim is that the only sense in which we can use the word 'nothing' is what you described as the 'colloquial' sense. What I meant by (5) is that no things are perfect (or, as I like to put it, that everything is such that it is not perfect), this is used differently than "Socrates": you get confused only because the grammatical structure is the same, but the [I]logical[/I] structure is very different indeed. When you speak of nothing as if you were speaking of an object you're talking nonsense.
[QUOTE=matsta;43604361]...[/QUOTE]
Yes and this is the problem. The word nothing is not well defined. Saying "There are no things outside the universe" is perfectly valid. I think it's just the wording and the word nothing works perfectly for everyday use.
Time is another thing which is not properly defined. The fact is we don't know if something was before the big bang but if there was something, then there must have been time, but we know time as the start of the big bang.
So it simply doesn't make sense to say "Before the big bang" because there was no before according to our time, even though there could have been something.
Last one is universe. The word universe is defined to mean everything. So if we discover that the multiverse is true, do we change the word universe to mean all the universes? Or still just our universe?
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43604628]Yes and this is the problem. The word nothing is not well defined. Saying "There are no things outside the universe" is perfectly valid. I think it's just the wording and the word nothing works perfectly for everyday use.
Time is another thing which is not properly defined. The fact is we don't know if something was before the big bang but if there was something, then there must have been time, but we know time as the start of the big bang.
So it simply doesn't make sense to say "Before the big bang" because there was no before according to our time, even though there could have been something.
Last one is universe. The word universe is defined to mean everything. So if we discover that the multiverse is true, do we change the word universe to mean all the universes? Or still just our universe?[/QUOTE]
If we do find out there is a multiverse we would probably slowly begin using the term multiverse as an 'everything' the way universe is used now, but universe would still be used kind of in the same way we still use the word "world" more commonly in every-day speech.
Some would say a vacuum, but a vacuum is still a definition of "something", as such, it is a thing and not "nothing".
Nothing is everything that isn't something.
[QUOTE=matsta;43604361]My point is that when you say (4) you are actually saying [I]that[/I]. You can always rephrase the sentences containing the word nothing so that they say the same without using that word. When you say, for example, "Nothign is an F" (let F be any predicate), this is equivalent to saying "Everything is such that it is not an F". This also works for the following sentences:
Everything is such that it is not outside of the universe.
Everything is such that it was not before god.
What I claim is that the only sense in which we can use the word 'nothing' is what you described as the 'colloquial' sense. What I meant by (5) is that no things are perfect (or, as I like to put it, that everything is such that it is not perfect), this is used differently than "Socrates": you get confused only because the grammatical structure is the same, but the [I]logical[/I] structure is very different indeed. When you speak of nothing as if you were speaking of an object you're talking nonsense.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. If you're using the philosophical term of 'nonsense', then I absolutely disagree. You can use the phrase "nothing is perfect" and have nothing used in the same way we'd use an object, and it be a meaningful sentence. Hell, you might even have a fascination with the idea of nothingness because it is "flawless". Despite the nature of nothingness, I feel you're certainly entitled to make descriptions of it without somehow violating its nothingness. Not entirely sure what you mean by "logical structure" instead of grammatical, as I consider grammatical structure to be the logical application of rules to linguistics. Unless you mean formal logic, and then I don't really see the problem there either.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;43606177]I disagree. If you're using the philosophical term of 'nonsense', then I absolutely disagree. You can use the phrase "nothing is perfect" and have nothing used in the same way we'd use an object, and it be a meaningful sentence. Hell, you might even have a fascination with the idea of nothingness because it is "flawless". Despite the nature of nothingness, I feel you're certainly entitled to make descriptions of it without somehow violating its nothingness. Not entirely sure what you mean by "logical structure" instead of grammatical, as I consider grammatical structure to be the logical application of rules to linguistics. Unless you mean formal logic, and then I don't really see the problem there either.[/QUOTE]
Of course you can say thigns like
a) Nothing[I]ness[/I] is perfect.
or
b) Nothing[I]ness[/I] is impossible.
, in which case you would be talking about an object. I take those sentences as talkign about a state of the world (the state of containing no objects) or about a property of the world (the property of it beign such that there are no objects), but you would be talkign about a [I]state[/I], or about a [I]property[/I], so those sentences would have a logical structure that is completely different from the one of
(5) Nothing is perfect.
In a) you are picking a property of the world and adscribing perfection to that property. In (5) you are saying that there are no perfect things.
[editline]20th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=matsta;43614152]Of course you can say thigns like
a) Nothing[I]ness[/I] is perfect.
or
b) Nothing[I]ness[/I] is impossible.
, in which case you would be talking about an object. I take those sentences as talkign about a state of the world (the state of containing no objects) or about a property of the world (the property of it beign such that there are no objects), but you would be talkign about a [I]state[/I], or about a [I]property[/I], so those sentences would have a logical structure that is completely different from the one of
(5) Nothing is perfect.
In a) you are picking a property of the world and adscribing perfection to that property. In (5) you are saying that there are no perfect things.[/QUOTE]
Edit:
Yes, I meant logical structure: (5) involves quantification. a) does not.
So according to quantum loop gravity the only time when nothing can be true is when everything is false.[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pMt3nli.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=matsta;43614152]Of course you can say thigns like
a) Nothing[I]ness[/I] is perfect.
or
b) Nothing[I]ness[/I] is impossible.
, in which case you would be talking about an object. I take those sentences as talkign about a state of the world (the state of containing no objects) or about a property of the world (the property of it beign such that there are no objects), but you would be talkign about a [I]state[/I], or about a [I]property[/I], so those sentences would have a logical structure that is completely different from the one of
(5) Nothing is perfect.
In a) you are picking a property of the world and adscribing perfection to that property. In (5) you are saying that there are no perfect things.
[editline]20th January 2014[/editline]
Edit:
Yes, I meant logical structure: (5) involves quantification. a) does not.[/QUOTE]
I still don't see how you've proved that talking about nothing as an object is nonsense. You've just used the terminology of nothing as one. (Nothing[I]ness[/I]) This doesn't show to me that talking about it as an object is nonsense, but rather, is entirely understandable. You can argue that we're talking about a "state of the world", but to me, that can be used to describe almost every object. ("It is such that this world contains a table/physical object A") In my view, objects are simply things in the state of the world. Admittedly this leads us to the contradictory position that nothing becomes a thing, but then it seems the only thing that needs to occur to 'nothing' for it to become 'something' is to describe or define it, then its an impossible task to begin with.
But anyway then I feel I must take issue with your belief that we can only use the term "nothing" in a singular colloquial sense (the colloquial sense of 'nothing of interest' or 'nothing of use'). You've sensibly divided the term into two different operations (that is, of the nothing that is nothingness and the nothing that is 'pass' over all objects in the world, and I feel both have a legitimate and sensible use.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;43616740]I still don't see how you've proved that talking about nothing as an object is nonsense. You've just used the terminology of nothing as one. (Nothing[I]ness[/I]) This doesn't show to me that talking about it as an object is nonsense, but rather, is entirely understandable. You can argue that we're talking about a "state of the world", [B]but to me, that can be used to describe almost every object. ("It is such that this world contains a table/physical object A").[/B][/QUOTE]
This is not true. The object 'table' is clearly distinct with the property 'being such that there is a table'. The first one is concrete; the second, abstract. The first one is an object; the second, a property. The relationship between both is the following: It is necessary that there is a table if the world intances the property of being such that there is a table.
The property of the word of being such that there are no objects is defined quantificationally, so there is no corresponding object 'nothing': It is necessary that there are no objects in the world if it instances the property 'being such that there are no objects'.
[QUOTE]In my view, objects are simply things in the state of the world.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that.
[QUOTE]Admittedly this leads us to the contradictory position that nothing becomes a thing, but then it seems the only thing that needs to occur to 'nothing' for it to become 'something' is to describe or define it, then its an impossible task to begin with.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how this follows.
[QUOTE]But anyway then I feel I must take issue with your belief that we can only use the term "nothing" in a singular colloquial sense (the colloquial sense of 'nothing of interest' or 'nothing of use'). You've sensibly divided the term into two different operations (that is, of the nothing that is nothingness and the nothing that is 'pass' over all objects in the world, and I feel both have a legitimate and sensible use.[/QUOTE]
I haven't used the term "nothing" in any sense other than the quantificational sense. When I referred to the property I used the term "nothingness". But talking abut nothingness is not talking about 'nothing' as an object, because of what I pointed above: the property of nothingess can be defined without making reference to objects.
[QUOTE=uperkurk;43614371]So according to quantum loop gravity the only time when nothing can be true is when everything is false.[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pMt3nli.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Quantum loop gravity is theoretical, and although I don't know the rules of this thread, I'm sure that we wouldn't want to base arguments on things that haven't been proven.
Edit:
Nobody responded to my first post.
And it would really help if you identified that derivation/equations for us.
From what I can tell, those equations have a lot to do with electromagnetic flux going through a sphere.
Below is coulombs law, and you can see the 4 pi epsilon naught r squared term. Other than that I really wouldn't know unless you identified those equations for us.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/c/5/7c5f7d740b7164948459a2d493636b95.png[/IMG]
After that is the gravitational constant, just multiplying it with the permittivity of free space. I've never looked at quantum loop gravity before, but from what I can tell it seems rather crude and simple, trying to unify the forces by just multiplying these universal constants together.
nothing is the opposite of everything. thats it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.