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.

[McCulloch]

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: (.).

I am confused on two points. Firstly, if you say that it exists, then by definition how can it be nothing?

Secondly, why adopt a new symbol? The world of mathematics, physics, logic and philosophy have rich and well developed and well understood sets of symbols that could be used. Might I suggest the notation for an empty set.

Common notations for the empty set include "{}", "Ø", and … "Λ".

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

(.) = E=mc2

You lost me completely on this jump. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[enaidealukal]

Its interesting how some basic developments in mathematics and logic completely dissolved a topic that had interested and confounded logicians and philosophers for centuries. "Nothing" denotes the empty set (as one poster has already pointed out), which can be represented in logic with negated existential quantification- when we talk about nothing, we aren't saying there is some object (which has the property of non-existence- which is incoherent), we are saying that it is not the case that there are any objects.

[arian]

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: (.).

I am confused on two points. Firstly, if you say that it exists, then by definition how can it be nothing?

It exists in it's pure form as 'nothing', .. 'absolute nothing'.

If it didn't exist, I couldn't have discovered it and identified it, or we couldn't talk about it, right? How could we debate on 'nothing' if it didn't exist?

Secondly, why adopt a new symbol? The world of mathematics, physics, logic and philosophy have rich and well developed and well understood sets of symbols that could be used. Might I suggest the notation for an empty set.

Common notations for the empty set include "{}", "Ø", and … "Λ".

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

(.) = E=mc2

You lost me completely on this jump. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Sorry, I'm learning as I go. It should be (.) = E (it is not necessary to define E by mc2)
(.) = E, .. another word; (.) cannot effect 'E', and 'E' cannot force (pull, push) anything into (.)

I just looked at 'set theory', or ' empty set' and by golly at first it looked like this may be it, but no, this doesn't prove/describe 'nothing' because some of these examples are not true with (.) 'nothing'. They may be true in an 'empty set, but not nothing.

Properties: - Wikipedia
In standard axiomatic set theory, by the principle of extensionality, two sets are equal if they have the same elements; therefore there can be only one set with no elements. Hence there is but one empty set, and we speak of "the empty set" rather than "an empty set".

The mathematical symbols employed below are explained here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

Like for this last one, 'empty sets' cardinality being zero. I would say the cardinality of (.) is (.), not zero, even though it continues to note:

Wikipedia - The connection between the empty set and zero goes further, however: in the standard set-theoretic definition of natural numbers, we use sets to model the natural numbers. In this context, zero is modelled by the empty set.

So as I see it, 'empty set' {} or the 0-slashed is not 'nothing', my (.), and later on in the article it is actually noted;

Philosophical issues - Wikipedia

While the empty set is a standard and widely accepted mathematical concept, it remains an ontological curiosity, whose meaning and usefulness are debated by philosophers and logicians.

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists. Darling (2004) explains that the empty set is not nothing, but rather "the set of all triangles with four sides, the set of all numbers that are bigger than nine but smaller than eight, and the set of all opening moves in chess that involve a king."

The popular syllogism
Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness

Yet they still try to associate it with 'nothing'. {} defines an 'empty set' and the mathematics (sets) within the brackets is not nothing either. My (.) defines the existence of 'nothing'.

So I am sticking with (.) because of my experiment. I can actually visualize (.) in the bottom of the glass, and the water; "(" - being the water, and ")" - being the glass, and in between that is the "." - 'nothing'. Even though 'nothing' is in 'everything', they do not 'intersect'.

Thanks again McCulloch, because I have found Georg Cantor's attempt to distinguish finite from infinite, and just as their misconception of 'nothing' it goes back to set theory. There is no way to put (the infinity symbol) within {}, or even outside of it? The empty set would have to go within the infinity symbol to make any sense.

Nothing can be defined and proven, so it is something that exists
Nothing is not a void, not space or a '0'.

Energy 'E' is considered 'everything' right? But if 'everything' contains the (.) also, how can 'nothing' be equal to 'everything', since 'nothing' stands alone?

This is another proof that I have discovered 'absolute nothing', .. because 'nothing' has no value, even though it exists in everything,
Mathematically I would say:

E + (.) = E

Now don't confuse this with a term like; "It's there, but it's not there" because as I said, I can prove it's there and that it's real, only has no value.

[enaidealukal]

Oh dear...

[arian]

Its interesting how some basic developments in mathematics and logic completely dissolved a topic that had interested and confounded logicians and philosophers for centuries. "Nothing" denotes the empty set (as one poster has already pointed out), which can be represented in logic with negated existential quantification- when we talk about nothing, we aren't saying there is some object (which has the property of non-existence- which is incoherent), we are saying that it is not the case that there are any objects.

Hello enaidealukal, nice to see more people get involved with this topic that will revolutionize the way we view the universe, especially what may lye beyond it.

Please forgive me, but I don't seem to understand what you mean by; ".. dissolved a topic that had interested and confounded logicians and philosophers for centuries."??

Do you mean like; "dissolved the interest in the topic" because that is how I understand it!?

My discovery of nothing opened the door to unimaginable wealth of knowledge, and puts an end to centuries of misconceptions.

'Nothing' is not some object, it is something that exists and I can prove it.

"IT IS", or "Nothing IS", and just because it is not some object, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

'Nothing' is not an empty set, .. actually an empty set would be a good example of 'space'.

Philosophical issues of 'empty set' - Wikipedia

While the empty set is a standard and widely accepted mathematical concept, it remains an ontological curiosity, whose meaning and usefulness are debated by philosophers and logicians.

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists. Darling (2004) explains that the empty set is not nothing, but rather "the set of all triangles with four sides, the set of all numbers that are bigger than nine but smaller than eight, and the set of all opening moves in chess that involve a king."

What does; the empty set has 'nothing' inside it, but 'not the same thing as nothing" really mean? If the 'empty set' contained the 'nothing', it would be a definition of, or same as 'nothing'. Same, .. not the same, .. it shows that they don't understand the true meaning of nothing, right? IMHO the empty set contains 'space', .. like for more empty sets. Like a bottle in space, or like the empty bag. Darling (2004) isn't defining 'nothing' but 'non-existents'.

Also, 'nothing' has no properties, so I agree that saying; "which has the property of non-existence" would be incoherent.

What do you think my friend?

[enaidealukal]

this topic that will revolutionize the way we view the universe, especially what may lye beyond it.

You'll forgive me if I remain somewhat skeptical about that, I hope.

Please forgive me, but I don't seem to understand what you mean by; ".. dissolved a topic that had interested and confounded logicians and philosophers for centuries."??

Do you mean like; "dissolved the interest in the topic" because that is how I understand it!?

I mean that these conceptual/formal developments largely dissolved the traditional philosophical issues/problems pertaining to the subject of nothing or nothingness, which arose almost entirely due to an erroneous understanding of how to logically construe this term. For a (very rough) overview of some of these traditional problems, the Wiki article isn't terrible-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing#Western_philosophy

'Nothing' is not some object, it is something that exists and I can prove it.

If you had something that existed, it would, by definition, NOT be nothing. You couldn't do this, even in principle.

"IT IS", or "Nothing IS", and just because it is not some object, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, that's more or less what that means in this context.

'Nothing' is not an empty set, ..

"Nothing" is a word. A word for a concept that can be denoted, in set theory, by the empty set, or, in logic, by negated existential quantification.

actually an empty set would be a good example of 'space'.

I honestly don't even know what you could possibly mean by that. Just looks like a category error.

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something.

A set isn't a physical object, it doesn't have an "inside" or an "outside". The empty set is a set with no elements, a set whose cardinality is zero. To use the example I've already seen, if we have an empty basket, we might say that there is nothing in the basket. But then, this just means is that the cardinality of the set formed by the contents of the basket is zero- the empty set; in other words, the empty set is a way of representing/expressing what the basket has in it- namely, nothing. The contents of the basket form a set with no elements.

If the 'empty set' contained the 'nothing', it would be a definition of, or same as 'nothing'.

The empty set doesn't "contain" anything- you keep talking about sets as if they were physical receptacles. That's not correct. A set is a collection. In itself, it isn't anything. If I have 3 basketballs, I have a set whose members are [basketball, basketball, basketball]. But do I actually have four things- the 3 balls, and then also a set of 3 balls? No. I just have three balls. The set is the three balls, no more.

So it isn't that the empty set is a thing, which "contains" nothing- the empty set is simply a different way of expressing the same idea or concept that we can express by using the word "nothing". The word "nothing", the empty set, and negated existential quantification are all different ways of expressing the same idea.

[Star]

Arian, nothing isn't anything. It's not a part of the multiverse. We never have to worry about it. There's only what exists, and that's it. Only that which exists can have properties. It's not this complicated.

Some smart mathematicians have invented a way to represent nothing as an empty set containing no elements, in the abstract only, and this is it. This is where I think "the universe from nothing" screws up; quantum fields and virtual particles aren't empty sets. They're something which can be eventually measured, to be sure.

Gravity is the result of mass's interaction with the gravitational field which permeates the entire universe. It goes without saying, the entire planet has quite a bit more mass than just a mountain. Humans can't even perceive the gravity from the moon, but it still causes the tides as it orbits, tugging on the ocean as it does, and making the Earth wobble. We also can't perceive (without equipment) the gravity from the sun, which keeps Earth in orbit, or Jupiter, which also causes the Earth to wobble.

But nothing is still nothing. Even Arian's empty glass is something. It's only empty if it's stipulated that it should contain a beverage. A liquid is what we expect it to contain, so we say there's nothing in it if it's empty. But it's not technically empty. It's filled with atmosphere consisting of several gases, as well as water vapor, dust, dark matter, soap residue, bacteria, etc., which all have mass. There are also virtual particles, force fields, neutrinos, photons, energy, etc., which also exist in their own right.

Now I'll be asked why he can't feel the gravity from the soap residue since it has mass, I just know it.

[arian]

this topic that will revolutionize the way we view the universe, especially what may lye beyond it.

You'll forgive me if I remain somewhat skeptical about that, I hope.

Of course, absolutely, I read your post.

Please forgive me, but I don't seem to understand what you mean by; ".. dissolved a topic that had interested and confounded logicians and philosophers for centuries."??

Do you mean like; "dissolved the interest in the topic" because that is how I understand it!?

I mean that these conceptual/formal developments largely dissolved the traditional philosophical issues/problems pertaining to the subject of nothing or nothingness, which arose almost entirely due to an erroneous understanding of how to logically construe this term. For a (very rough) overview of some of these traditional problems, the Wiki article isn't terrible-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing#Western_philosophy

Please tell me what are the "traditional philosophical issues/problems pertaining to the subject of nothing or nothingness"?

Oh yea, and the old religious story how "God created the universe from nothing" bit. Yes, I agree that is a rough, very rough overview of some religious un-Biblical misconception on how God created the universe from nothing, which was most likely invented by the same religious fella that invented the Big-bang theory.

So far all you are doing is trying and hoping to convince me to give up the fact that nothing exists, and not dealing directly with my definition. I'm sorry, but I am a scientist with a mind, NOT what todays Evolutionary scientists prove to be: "Fairytale storytellers with only a brain." And that their mind is only a construct of their brain. Which would mean that when we reach to touch something, it goes to our brain to tell us to go and touch something.

'Nothing' is not some object, it is something that exists and I can prove it.

If you had something that existed, it would, by definition, NOT be nothing. You couldn't do this, even in principle.

No, .. not from your religious POV you keep mentioning which you actually 'believe'. You see you are not proving anything, you just keep saying nothing doesn't exist from these different views that don't apply. I can show you nothing exists, and you keep saying; "no it don't"

"IT IS", or "Nothing IS", and just because it is not some object, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, that's more or less what that means in this context.

Yes it does, and I can prove it.

'Nothing' is not an empty set, ..

"Nothing" is a word. A word for a concept that can be denoted, in set theory, by the empty set, or, in logic, by negated existential quantification.

Empty set is not nothing, If you read my posts, I said; "I can PROVE the existence of 'nothing' both scientifically and logically/philosophically"

actually an empty set would be a good example of 'space'.

I honestly don't even know what you could possibly mean by that. Just looks like a category error.

Yes that would be for someone using only their brain: "ERROR, DOES NOT COMPUTE"
But you see I use my mind where I can actually see nothing, and my mind then interprets it to my brain, and using a scientific experiment I 'prove' the existence of 'nothing' Not as just a word. I understand what you are saying, I read it too.

Please don't take this as some form of insult, but a robot operates with a pre-programmed brain (stored memory). The search engine will work hard to solve the problem, which in this case is the meaning of "nothing". If the programmer put in there that 'nothing doesn't exist' or that 'it is just a word', it will go into an error. Now talking to a robot or a human that believes that the brain is it, and that the mind is just a construct of the brain, (Evolution Theory) then it can only compute what is stored in the brain. In cases like this, (especially on religious ideas like the Big-bang Evolution theory) the brain shuts out the mind, and keeps using circular logic as you see Star here do, and others who just can't understand something so simple as the existence of 'nothing'.

I have explained using clear simple multiple definitions, POV's, and it's the same thing over and over again, "Does Not Compute" as if the only information they are allowed to access is what's stored on a Hard Drive.
Anything on God, the search engine finds info on it from the pre-programmed brain which says; "god/gods is religion, .. deity, .. superstition, .. supernatural, bronze aged fairytale" so no matter what I say that "God is outside of religion", it cannot comprehend it because God is already IN the brain as religion and so on.

The same with 'nothing', .. "Nothing, ... computing, ... got it; nothing Does Not Exist"

Get the Programmer out, and put your brain on 'learn mode'. Don't just opinionate what I say, store it and think about it. Obviously you have a lot more stored in your brain then I do, and I understand you depending on it too, .. but if new data is revealed, no matter how certified that old data is, you really should store this new data in there too. So when I explain this, the brain wouldn't just kick it out because the meaning of 'nothing' has already been stored in there; "Nothing has been studied by the greatest minds in history, .. and it does not exist! No need to store nothing', it already exists" Just as Wikipedia told me.

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something.

A set isn't a physical object, it doesn't have an "inside" or an "outside". The empty set is a set with no elements, a set whose cardinality is zero. To use the example I've already seen, if we have an empty basket, we might say that there is nothing in the basket. But then, this just means is that the cardinality of the set formed by the contents of the basket is zero- the empty set; in other words, the empty set is a way of representing/expressing what the basket has in it- namely, nothing. The contents of the basket form a set with no elements.

Empty, Zero, Void, Space, these are NOT 'nothing'. You have been programmed to believe they mean the same thing. There is only One "absolute nothing".

If the 'empty set' contained the 'nothing', it would be a definition of, or same as 'nothing'.

The empty set doesn't "contain" anything- you keep talking about sets as if they were physical receptacles. That's not correct. A set is a collection. In itself, it isn't anything. If I have 3 basketballs, I have a set whose members are [basketball, basketball, basketball]. But do I actually have four things- the 3 balls, and then also a set of 3 balls? No. I just have three balls. The set is the three balls, no more.

I wish you could see what you just said: "The empty set doesn't "contain" anything-"
Then you say: "you keep talking about sets as if they were physical receptacles"

Did you hear me define 'nothing' as an "empty nothing"? Are you sure your 'empty set' is not a receptacle?

I understand it's many uses, and yes I can say " close your eyes, open your palm I will give you something" "Now open your eyes"
You open it, and find you palm empty. What did I give you, .. "Nothing" right?

What do you have in your hand? Is it the idea of nothing because you were accepting something, or "absolute nothing"?

Even if I didn't give you anything, your hand does NOT contain absolute nothing. It is this "absolute nothing" that I am talking about.

So it isn't that the empty set is a thing, which "contains" nothing- the empty set is simply a different way of expressing the same idea or concept that we can express by using the word "nothing". The word "nothing", the empty set, and negated existential quantification are all different ways of expressing the same idea.

I understand that, why can't you? It is an "EMPTY SET" The EMPTY part is NOT the "absolute nothing" It is just empty, like a paper bag, but NOT "nothing". Zero is not nothing, space is not nothing, even our mind is not nothing, but I can show you that there IS a nothing, not an 'empty nothing', but an absolute nothing with its own integrity.

I am not saying like; "What she tell you?"
"Oh, nothing", .. I understand you, but I am showing you nothing by itself, and that it exists.

Please don't take the way I express myself as an offense. My examples are not meant to offend either, but to instruct.

Think about the term "empty set", why not just "set"?
Then think if I told you I can show you "an empty nothing"? Another word; no one took out anything from a hole, or space, or a bottle to make 'nothing'. Nothing is on it's own and I can prove it.

Thank you my friend.

[Star]

I'm sorry, but I am a scientist with a mind, NOT what todays Evolutionary scientists prove to be: "Fairytale storytellers with only a brain."

I'm sorry, but you aren't a scientist.

A few days ago you told me that you had no education. Now you're claiming that you're a scientist, which is over the top. Poe's Law comes to mind.

[enaidealukal]

Please tell me what are the "traditional philosophical issues/problems pertaining to the subject of nothing or nothingness"?

That was the purpose of the link, apparently you didn't bother looking at that section.

Oh yea, and the old religious story how "God created the universe from nothing" bit.

Not really, no.

So far all you are doing is trying and hoping to convince me to give up the fact that nothing exists

If I have to try to convince you to give up on a proposition that is incoherent, then I'm sure such an endeavor will be pointless.

No, .. not from your religious POV you keep mentioning which you actually 'believe'.

This is either ad hominem, or a silly mistake. I'm not religious.

You see you are not proving anything, you just keep saying nothing doesn't exist

Of course I do. That nothing doesn't exist is entailed by the definition of the word "nothing" in the English language. There isn't any other logically possible option, short of redefining the word "nothing" altogether.

. I can show you nothing exists

Then do it.

Empty set is not nothing

Right. The empty set is a different way of expressing the concept denoted by the English word "nothing"- namely, the absence of anything.

If you read my posts, I said; "I can PROVE the existence of 'nothing' both scientifically and logically/philosophically"

Oh don't worry, I saw that you said that. But I won't be holding my breath for you to make good on this boast.

Yes that would be for someone using only their brain: "ERROR, DOES NOT COMPUTE"

So... In other words, you don't know either. Gotcha.

Please don't take this as some form of insult

Don't worry. I doubt there's anything you could say to me that I would find to be insulting.

but a robot operates with a pre-programmed brain (stored memory). The search engine will work hard to solve the problem, which in this case is the meaning of "nothing". If the programmer put in there that 'nothing doesn't exist' or that 'it is just a word', it will go into an error. Now talking to a robot or a human that believes that the brain is it, and that the mind is just a construct of the brain, (Evolution Theory) then it can only compute what is stored in the brain. In cases like this, (especially on religious ideas like the Big-bang Evolution theory) the brain shuts out the mind, and keeps using circular logic as you see Star here do, and others who just can't understand something so simple as the existence of 'nothing'.

I have explained using clear simple multiple definitions, POV's, and it's the same thing over and over again, "Does Not Compute" as if the only information they are allowed to access is what's stored on a Hard Drive.
Anything on God, the search engine finds info on it from the pre-programmed brain which says; "god/gods is religion, .. deity, .. superstition, .. supernatural, bronze aged fairytale" so no matter what I say that "God is outside of religion", it cannot comprehend it because God is already IN the brain as religion and so on.

The same with 'nothing', .. "Nothing, ... computing, ... got it; nothing Does Not Exist"

Get the Programmer out, and put your brain on 'learn mode'. Don't just opinionate what I say, store it and think about it. Obviously you have a lot more stored in your brain then I do, and I understand you depending on it too, .. but if new data is revealed, no matter how certified that old data is, you really should store this new data in there too. So when I explain this, the brain wouldn't just kick it out because the meaning of 'nothing' has already been stored in there; "Nothing has been studied by the greatest minds in history, .. and it does not exist! No need to store nothing', it already exists" Just as Wikipedia told me.

A whole lot of off-topic ranting. Hope you feel better now, and we can return to the topic at hand?

Empty, Zero, Void, Space, these are NOT 'nothing'. You have been programmed to believe they mean the same thing. There is only One "absolute nothing".

"Programmed". Heh. Cute. In any case, space most certainly is not nothing, but empty, zero, and void are all very similar concepts to nothing, and are interchangeable in certain contexts. If I have a basket with nothing in it, I could just as easily say "the basket is empty" as I could say "there's nothing in the basket", or "there are zero things in the basket". These are all different ways of expressing the same thing.

I wish you could see what you just said: "The empty set doesn't "contain" anything-"
Then you say: "you keep talking about sets as if they were physical receptacles"

I can see what I just said.

Are you sure your 'empty set' is not a receptacle?

Yes. A set is an abtraction. Its not a toy chest. You can't use a set to hold your basketballs. There is no inside or outside.

I understand it's many uses, and yes I can say " close your eyes, open your palm I will give you something" "Now open your eyes"
You open it, and find you palm empty. What did I give you, .. "Nothing" right?

It sounds like it.

What do you have in your hand?

I don't have anything in my hand. Which is the point. If I have nothing in my hand, that doesn't mean there is something in my hand- a nothing. It means it is not the case that there is anything in my hand. That's all. You're being fooled by the structure of the language, rather than the simple logic of it.

Even if I didn't give you anything, your hand does NOT contain absolute nothing. It is this "absolute nothing" that I am talking about.

What is "absolute" nothing as opposed to the normal, everyday variety of nothing?

It is just empty, like a paper bag, but NOT "nothing". Zero is not nothing, space is not nothing, even our mind is not nothing

Nobody said these things were nothing. An empty paper bag isn't nothing, its still a paper bag. It just has nothing in it. Zero is not nothing, its a number. A number which expresses the same cardinality that we can express with the word "nothing".

I am not saying like; "What she tell you?"
"Oh, nothing", .. I understand you, but I am showing you nothing by itself, and that it exists.

So far, you haven't showed me anything. Or is that the point?

My examples are not meant to offend either, but to instruct.

Before one can instruct, they need to show that their view has some merit to begin with. We are not past that stage yet.