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.

[arian]

[Replying to post 36 by Deidre32]

I am not so sure science can define nothing. After all nothing in essence is just a philosophical concept. I am not even sure nothing can exist given the parameters of what we understand about the universe. Of course this brings up another problem and that is that nothing is something at least in English anyways since nothing is a pronoun and pronouns are things nothing is something or at the very least can be referred to as a thing.

So is nothing particularly useful? I would have to say no at least not in debate.

Hello DanieltheDragon, so you feel that something as important as the existence of 'nothing', where I can show you and define it, is not useful in debate? OK, how about taking me up on my invitation for a hands on, face to face demonstration?

I can define 'nothing' scientifically with a simple experiment. Can you or anyone define Einstein's Special Relativity like; "Length Contraction, time dilation and mass gain" scientifically, where I and anyone else could observe it, and replicate the experiment within the same context of science?

I don't mean hypothesizing what nothing 'may have been billions of years ago' as some 'thing' like a speck of quantum string or something. Or this other 'nothing' that Big-bang scientists claim the universe is expanding into. I'm talking about 'real-science'.

Another word; 'Here I am busy observing the world around me, then one day something occurs to me as I am doing a simple experiment, "WOW, .. I am actually holding 'nothing' in my hand!" After some observation and examination of my experiment, I come to the conclusion, "nothing exists in its true form as 'nothing'".

And further looking at my experiment, I could predict that 'nothing' has the density or solid state (going to have to do for now) of the mass of the entire universe. Another word; the entire mass of the universe couldn't pull/push/force 'nothing' apart, or force something into it no matter how quantum small. "Nothing remains a solid nothing" under all circumstances.

I have been trying to define a symbol for 'nothing', and looking at my experiment where I contain nothing in something, the two brackets (.) make perfect sense. The separation of the brackets show that the 'nothing' is not contained in a closed system like in an O, and the space within the brackets are actually necessary, which could be air, water, any liquid or gas that helps 'contain' nothing in a free state. The dot between the brackets represents the existence of 'nothing', merely that it exists. (Please forgive my crude explanation)

Yes, I am content in identifying 'nothing' with the symbol: (.).

Hey wait, so this would mean that; 'Nothing' is equal to the sum total of Einstein's E=mc2 ?!?

(.) = E=mc2

Using my (.) symbol for the existence of 'nothing'.

Any comment would be greatly appreciated.

[arian]

Sorry, I can't figure out how to multi quote lol
:-}}

Just click on the laughing emotion multiple times, like this;

I don't think nothing is merely philosophical. Scientists define it differently than lay people. It's not "no thing" as suggested in the OP. There had to be something not yet definable in physics that caused the Big Bang.

Science says for now, it's "uncaused." But that doesn't translate to "no thing" existing pre Big Bang.

I'm an atheist. As a Christian, I thought differently about all this. Lol

Please forgive me, but how can the phrase/word; 'uncaused' regarding the universe be scientific? It has a religious tone to it, like my Christian parents responses to my many questions about our faith; "Because!, .. or because I said so!"

But I believe you are on to 'something', and it is the existence of 'nothing'.

'Nothing' is something, .. it's 'nothing'. And I can assure you that no universe, or even the tiniest speck of quantum whatever could pop out of nothing, exist in nothing, and expand in nothing. (Please read my recent previous post.)

But if you believe that the universe is it, meaning there is 'nothing' beside it, or that the universe is the sum total of existence, then the actual definition of 'nothing' could be very important for you. It would solve the problem of infinite regress.

Next step I would suggest is for you to investigate the difference between the brain/finite and the mind/infinite, because that will solve everything, including understanding the existence of 'nothing'.

[Goat]

Sorry, I can't figure out how to multi quote lol
:-}}

I don't think nothing is merely philosophical. Scientists define it differently than lay people. It's not "no thing" as suggested in the OP. There had to be something not yet definable in physics that caused the Big Bang.

Science says for now, it's "uncaused." But that doesn't translate to "no thing" existing pre Big Bang.

I'm an atheist. As a Christian, I thought differently about all this. Lol


((On an unrelated note, why doesn't my sig show?))

When you respond, there is a number of options below the window you type in. One is 'Attach signature'. Make sure that button is checked.

[Deidre32]

Sorry, I can't figure out how to multi quote lol
:-}}

Just click on the laughing emotion multiple times, like this;

I don't think nothing is merely philosophical. Scientists define it differently than lay people. It's not "no thing" as suggested in the OP. There had to be something not yet definable in physics that caused the Big Bang.

Science says for now, it's "uncaused." But that doesn't translate to "no thing" existing pre Big Bang.

I'm an atheist. As a Christian, I thought differently about all this. Lol

Please forgive me, but how can the phrase/word; 'uncaused' regarding the universe be scientific? It has a religious tone to it, like my Christian parents responses to my many questions about our faith; "Because!, .. or because I said so!"

But I believe you are on to 'something', and it is the existence of 'nothing'.

'Nothing' is something, .. it's 'nothing'. And I can assure you that no universe, or even the tiniest speck of quantum whatever could pop out of nothing, exist in nothing, and expand in nothing. (Please read my recent previous post.)

But if you believe that the universe is it, meaning there is 'nothing' beside it, or that the universe is the sum total of existence, then the actual definition of 'nothing' could be very important for you. It would solve the problem of infinite regress.

Next step I would suggest is for you to investigate the difference between the brain/finite and the mind/infinite, because that will solve everything, including understanding the existence of 'nothing'.

I'm in agreement with you...perhaps, I'm not explaining myself correctly.

[Deidre32]

[Replying to post 43 by Goat]

thank you! found it.

[Star]

[Replying to post 37 by arian]

Wow, how can you possibly be serious?

Science has known about gravity, mass, and energy since before we were born.

You didn't discover them, but of course, this won't stop you from pretending you did.

[arian]

[Replying to post 37 by arian]

Wow, how can you possibly be serious?

Science has known about gravity, mass, and energy since before we were born.

You didn't discover them, but of course, this won't stop you from pretending you did.

I said I discovered 'nothing', and I can prove it, .. and yes I'm serious.

I really wish you would respond to my last post to DanieltheDragon, I'm really, really looking forward for your opinion on it also?

[arian]

I'm in agreement with you...perhaps, I'm not explaining myself correctly.

Sorry and please forgive me because it is I who did not understand you correctly. I re-read your opinion and I see what you mean. Thank you, and please do share some more?

[McCulloch]

I said I discovered 'nothing', and I can prove it, .. and yes I'm serious.

Claiming that you can prove something and actually proving it are two vastly different things.

Nothing has a temperature of absolute zero.
Nothing travels faster than light, but I cannot get anyone to verify how much faster.
Nothing has been shown to cure cancer and yet a ham sandwich is better than nothing.

I would be very interested in your discovery of nothing. However, I fear that once discovered, it became no longer nothing.

[FarWanderer]

"Gravity is simply the method by which the earth is pulling the bowling ball."

And this relates to me being able to prove the existence of 'nothing' how?

You tell me. You're the one who brought up gravity.

Thank you FarWonderer for the rest of your very informative responses, I have learned a great deal. I have also learned how 'not to' randomly ramble.

FarWanderer.

I was saying that the part about your son and getting work had nothing to do with our conversation, and was more appropriate for the Random Ramblings subforum instead.