What is nothing?

[Star]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the meaning of "nothing".

I posit there can only be one true meaning of nothing; it's that which doesn't exist, never existed, can't exist, and never will exist, in any universe or other state of existence, period. It's no thing.

Debate for or against this.

Here's a good debate on nothing. As much as I like Lawrence M. Krauss, I think he confuses people with his sloppy use of the term. By his own admission (insistence even) there are two other definitions of nothing.

[scourge99]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the meaning of "nothing".

I posit there can only be one true meaning of nothing; it's that which doesn't exist, never existed, can't exist, and never will exist, in any universe or other state of existence, period. It's no thing.

Debate for or against this.

Here's a good debate on nothing. As much as I like Lawrence M. Krauss, I think he confuses people with his sloppy use of the term. By his own admission (insistence even) there are two other definitions of nothing.

Nothing is a relative term. I.E., there is nothing in regards to what?

I don't know what it means to talk about nothingness in regards to everything.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by Star]

What is nothing? If it is then it is not nothing.

I believe that the answer is related to the associated question: What is a thing? A thing occupies space, is a defined unit and exists for a length of time. Things can be composite, that is made from other things: families are made of people; people are made of cells; cells are made of atoms; atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. Of we rule out the possibility of an actual infinite progression then at some level there must be the things which are fundamentally indivisible. Nothing then would be the complete absence of any of these fundamental things.

[Star]

Nothing is a relative term. I.E., there is nothing in regards to what?

Relative to everything that exists. Everything that is real is something, eg. space, time, matter, energy, forces, consciousness, quantum mechanics, etc.

[Star]

[Replying to post 1 by Star]

What is nothing? If it is then it is not nothing.

I believe that the answer is related to the associated question: What is a thing? A thing occupies space, is a defined unit and exists for a length of time. Things can be composite, that is made from other things: families are made of people; people are made of cells; cells are made of atoms; atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. Of we rule out the possibility of an actual infinite progression then at some level there must be the things which are fundamentally indivisible. Nothing then would be the complete absence of any of these fundamental things.

If a thing occupies space and is subject to time, then what is space and time? Are they not something?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 5 by Star]

Space and time exist in a different context to objects.
Space and time are dimensions, an abstract invention relating to the degrees in which two things may be separated.

An easy example is that first, space and time aren't different things - they're all dimensions - and second, spacetime isn't a necessary concept - we could still believe in 4 dimensions but they don't have to be the same linear basis as spacetime.

E.g., you'd measure spacetime in some co-ordinate system, plus time, like XYZT for example.
But you could also take that co-ordinate system and rotate it about some arbitrary angle, and it would still be linearly independent (you could still reference any point as in the original co-ordinate system) but you wouldn't have space and time dimensions, you'd have dimensions halfway between space dimensions and time dimensions.

[Star]

I see this as a "something vs. nothing" rather than a "things vs. nothing" issue. This is even the question posed in the subheading of Krauss' book Why is there something rather than nothing? as well as a question addressed in the debate video I posted.

Krauss' concept of nothing generally goes over well with theoretical physicists but not so much philosophers. Notice the rift between Krauss and the philosophy-waxing journalist second to our right. I also find the mathematician's definition of nothing interesting: Nothing is null, not even zero. If you start with zero, take out the zero, and you get the null set.

I perceive your positions as equating to "nothing = zero" which seems to require that things must exist in order for nothing to also exist. On the contrary, null is independent of what exists and what doesn't. Null is null for everything. What it represents doesn't exist.

Unlike the definition of things, "something" includes abstract concepts, events, and attributes.

For example...

An event or occurrence: "Something is going on at the school, but I don't know what." (Webster)

An emotional expression: "A wry look, something between amusement and regret." (Google)

An abstract concept communicated: "Something that you mention in order to show the type of thing that you are talking about and to help to explain what you mean." (Macmillan)

A subjective attribute: "There's something about this place that frightens me." (Oxford)

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.c ... omething_1

[Divine Insight]

I look at this problem as follows:

The question "What is nothing?" is basically a meaningless question. It already treats the concept of nothing, as though it can be described by asking what it is.

I agree with the idea of breaking the term down to it's roots: no thing.

And then asking "What is no thing?" Well, no thing is simply the absences of any thing, and therefore the concept of nothing does not exist.

So for me to even ask, "What is nothing?" is a meaningless question.

~~~~~~

Now we can move forward from this and ask, "Did our universe spring into existence from nothing?" (i.e. from no thing). Or was there some thing that gave rise to our universe by undergoing some sort of transformations?

~~~~~~

Well again the first question is basically meaningless at this point in time mainly because we cannot even begin to answer it.

The second question appears to potentially have some plausible answers however.

We have reasons to suspect or at least postulate hypothetically that there may indeed have been energy fields of some sort preexisting our physical universe that gave rise to our physical universe.

Because of this I am willing to believe that some "thing" preexisted our physical universe.

If you ask, "Where did that thing come from?", I cannot even begin to guess. The very thought boggles my mind, but believing that something somehow always exists rather than things coming from nothing has a slightly greater intuitive appeal (very slight). But at least it seems to do away with the problem of something coming from nothing.

~~~~~

Now for the bigger questions:

Was this something that gave rise to our universe a "God"?

Well, that gets into a whole can of worms defining what is even meant by the term "God".

However there is actually something quite interesting about to enter the picture here.

Even if we allow that this thing that preceded the universe to be called a "God" we are still stuck with the same basic questions we had before.

Did this God create the universe from nothing?

OR

Did this God simply transform itself to become this universe?

For the same reasons that I would choose that the universe most likely came from some "thing" rather than from "nothing", I would also be compelled to believe that if there exists a "god" it too has simply become the universe rather than having created a brand new universe from "nothing".

And this is actually why the Eastern Mystical view of God appears a bit more rational to me than anthropomorphic pictures of God. If there was a "god" that created the universe it most likely simply transformed to become the universe.

In fact, if you stop and think about it, to believe that a God could create a universe out of "nothing" isn't really much better than believing that a universe could spring into existence out of "nothing" on it's own.

If something can come from nothing why the need for a God?

~~~~~

So I'm content with believing that something has always existed. Whether that thing is a "God" or not is really nothing more than a matter of semantics. It could just be some sort of quantum vacuum field that always exists and has the property of transforming into physical realities off and on.

It seems to me that in either case we are it. We are this thing that has transformed to become a universe. If the thing was a God, then we are this God experiencing this transformation. If the thing was a quantum field of energy, then we are this quantum field of energy experiencing this transformation, and so on.

The irony of this is that in either of these cases we could potentially do this over and over again for eternity. Whether we are a "God" or just a quantum energy field, there is no reason why we can't do this repeatedly for eternity.

In fact, the only possible way to truly be finite is if we did indeed spring from nothing. If we actually sprang from nothing then it also makes sense that we will eventually dissipate back into nothingness.

But even more strange is that this doesn't even truly change anything. If nothingness can give rise to this universe where beings can have an experience, and then eventually dissipate back into nothingness again, then surely it could happen again. And if it did happen again then there would be an experience that goes along with that.

What is it that is having these experiences? The nothing itself that keeps popping into existence as physical universes? This almost doesn't even change the picture at all from having a quantum field of energy doing this, or even a "God" (whatever that might mean).

In short, it doesn't matter. We are here life is happening. It's clearly happening now. If it can happen now then it can obviously happen again as well. And therefore we can happen again too.

So it seems to me that no matter how hard we try we'll never get out of this. We're all coming back to relive untold numbers of lives whether we like it or not.

So we may as well get used to it and just accept that this is our eternal fate.

Well, be back to have these same arguments ad infinitum. Sorry to say.

There is no escape and resistance if futile.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 7 by Star]

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" isn't really a question worthy of wasting a book worth of time on.
Sidney Morgenbesser, possibly the best response:
'If there were nothing you'd still be complaining'

Or to more directly retort:
Why should there be nothing rather than something?



I treat nothing as no thing - the semantic negation of anything, and am of the view that nothing does not and will never exist. (And the slightly less obvious view of has never existed)
"Nothing does not exist" > "No thing does not exist" > "Something does exist"

This is not reconcilable with calling the null set nothing. Summing the null set is meaningfully defined. But "summing nothing" means not summing. The product of the null set is meaningfully defined. But "taking the product of nothing" means not taking the product.

[Star]

Space and time are dimensions, an abstract invention relating to the degrees in which two things may be separated.

I agree they are dimensions, but were they invented, or were they discovered? If space-time is real, then it was discovered, not invented, as that incorrectly implies we made it.

Space is more than the nothingness which separates two objects. Permeating space are numerous fields and strange particles. A better description of nothingness in this context is that which our universe is expanding into; nothing.

Space and time are dimensions, an abstract invention relating to the degrees in which two things may be separated.

An easy example is that first, space and time aren't different things - they're all dimensions - and second, spacetime isn't a necessary concept - we could still believe in 4 dimensions but they don't have to be the same linear basis as spacetime.

But you could also take that co-ordinate system and rotate it about some arbitrary angle, and it would still be linearly independent (you could still reference any point as in the original co-ordinate system) but you wouldn't have space and time dimensions, you'd have dimensions halfway between space dimensions and time dimensions.

Notice, you referred to space and time as "things."

This is getting off-topic, but it's OK. Space-time is important to correctly calculate GPS coordinates. Satellites are in a different place in space, travelling in a different direction, at different relative velocities, and so their clocks experience time slightly differently than our cars. To ensure our GPSs are accurate, Einstein's time dilation equation from Relativity must be performed. This calculation accurately describes space-time because it's demonstrable. This calculation also isn't linear, so space-time mustn't be either.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

So it's not accurate to say that space-time isn't a necessary concept, at least for the technology-savvy. It could be replaced with a better model in the future, but for now, it works. I like my GPS (except when it tells me to turn at the wrong intersection).