Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[harvey1]

Michael S. Turner has something interesting to say on this:

in a universe of infinite possibilities, even the extremely improbable often and infinitely happen. It could be that our bubble universe is very atypical. For example, it may be that the typical bubble never evolves living creatures. If this is the case, then our view of the universe is highly anthropocentric. (Before inflation, we faced an infinite universe that we could never fully explore. However, the fact that the great portion we could see looked so similar to our own neighborhood, gave us confidence in the applicability of the Copernican Principle.)

I attended a lecture by Prof. Turner and I have a great deal of admiration for him. I also remember that he's a platonist when it comes to the laws of physics (i.e., he believes those laws dictate the universe).

I really don't think it is relevant as to how many dead-end universes there are, just like it doesn't matter how many lifeforms that existed that went extinct or the number of stars that don't have planets with life, etc.. All that matters is the complexity that can take place in principle based on those laws in place. What a platonist interpretation of the laws provides is a demonstration that this (meta)universe is of a sufficient sophistication that the only explanation is that there is a God.

[harvey1]

To put it another way, the dependence upon space-time shows that causality could not be precedent to space-time.

Uhg. I already mentioned the large number of cosmologists who think it is conceivable and reasonable that bubbles of spacetimes pop into existence from nothing. There's nothing known currently in physics that prevents this possibility. Why do you wish to restrict the universe without having good cause to do so?

It is possible to calculate time dilation using the same calculation as is used to calculate the length of a triangles side(or a squares, pentagon, hexagon etc upto and including a circles not to mention the radii of the shapes or the area). This does not show that the equation is precedent to the geometries but it does show that the geometries have certain similarities. I do not exclude any possibility but I do require evidence before I am willing to accept any theory as having particular credit. As for what certain cosmologist may or not believe, I try to stick with what cosmologists know and can prove. It would be unfair to hold one group to a different standard than I would hold another.

We have evidence that particles can pop in and out of existence. This is what zero point energy is all about. In fact, the acceleration of the universe's expansion may be a result of virtual particles popping in from nothing.

[ST88]

I really don't think it is relevant as to how many dead-end universes there are, just like it doesn't matter how many lifeforms that existed that went extinct or the number of stars that don't have planets with life, etc.. All that matters is the complexity that can take place in principle based on those laws in place. What a platonist interpretation of the laws provides is a demonstration that this (meta)universe is of a sufficient sophistication that the only explanation is that there is a God.

I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion following your reasoning. If it is possible for this current set of laws to create us, which I presume it to be, then we would expect us to be created given enough instantiations to satisfy the probability. There is also the very likely possibility that a different universe with slight changes here and there would have produced slightly different sentient beings.

The complexity is irrelevant. A natural system can appear irredeemably complex when we don't know even just one variable. Imagine not even knowing how many variables we've yet to define.

[Curious]

To put it another way, the dependence upon space-time shows that causality could not be precedent to space-time.

Uhg. I already mentioned the large number of cosmologists who think it is conceivable and reasonable that bubbles of spacetimes pop into existence from nothing. There's nothing known currently in physics that prevents this possibility. Why do you wish to restrict the universe without having good cause to do so?

Without spacetime how can you have cause and effect exactly?
What about the conservation of energy? This most definitely contradicts this unless you are to concede that a negative energy particle would also be simultaneously created or perhaps the spacetime bubbles are devoid of energy. This then leads us to the possibility of multiple dimensions which you seem to wish to discount with no good cause.
I have already stated that what is conceivable and reasonable cannot be used to back up an argument requiring evidence. To suggest that some cosmologists might believe this is no evidence at all. There is nothing known in the universe that can disprove the non existence of anything so how can you demand such evidence from physics?Science attempts to discover what is there, not what is not there. I don't wish to restrict the universe at all but since we are examining this in a scientific manner, it is necessary to use what we know instead of heresay.

We have evidence that particles can pop in and out of existence. This is what zero point energy is all about. In fact, the acceleration of the universe's expansion may be a result of virtual particles popping in from nothing.

We do indeed have evidence that virtual particles exist. What you seem incapable of grasping however is that these particles exist here and now in a universe of vast complexity and an abundance of energy. They come into existence from and within a universe which is most definitely not nothing. How would this be any different from saying that light exists in nothing because we observe it in this universe?

[harvey1]

If it is possible for this current set of laws to create us, which I presume it to be, then we would expect us to be created given enough instantiations to satisfy the probability. There is also the very likely possibility that a different universe with slight changes here and there would have produced slightly different sentient beings.

If these instantiations require us to eliminate many other conceivably possible states, then the state that caused these instantiations is a royal flush. My question is why the royal flush. Why didn't the hand the Universe was dealt only come up junk? For example, had the universe just been a 1D universe doing nothing interesting, there would be no structures in the universe. Why wasn't there just a 1D universe?

The complexity is irrelevant. A natural system can appear irredeemably complex when we don't know even just one variable. Imagine not even knowing how many variables we've yet to define.

Sure, the complex nature of our universe may be drastically overstated. I accept that. However, there's still a very large number of hands where there are no Royal Flushes, regardless how "simple" the Royal Flush turned out to be. For example, could our Royal Flush be simpler than nothing at all, or even a 1D or 2D universe? I don't see why you would allow for that.

[harvey1]

Without spacetime how can you have cause and effect exactly?

You can't assume that causality requires a spacetime when major new advances in cosmology indicate that our spacetime could tunnel in from nothing.

What about the conservation of energy? This most definitely contradicts this unless you are to concede that a negative energy particle would also be simultaneously created or perhaps the spacetime bubbles are devoid of energy.

I've shown that the conservation of energy is valid if negative gravitational energy nulls out the positive energy in the universe.

This then leads us to the possibility of multiple dimensions which you seem to wish to discount with no good cause.
I have already stated that what is conceivable and reasonable cannot be used to back up an argument requiring evidence.

We have evidence of inflation which shows up in the cosmic background radiation. This indicates a quantum origin to the universe which suggests that quantum fluctuations (i.e., zero point energy) are responsible for the structures in the universe. Not to mention, we have theories which are moving forward at a promising clip in their explanatory capabilities.

What you seem incapable of grasping however is that these particles exist here and now in a universe of vast complexity and an abundance of energy. They come into existence from and within a universe which is most definitely not nothing. How would this be any different from saying that light exists in nothing because we observe it in this universe?

Please keep your tone polite otherwise it's probably better we not continue our discussion.

[QED]

Sure, the complex nature of our universe may be drastically overstated. I accept that. However, there's still a very large number of hands where there are no Royal Flushes, regardless how "simple" the Royal Flush turned out to be. For example, could our Royal Flush be simpler than nothing at all, or even a 1D or 2D universe? I don't see why you would allow for that.

"Can there be such a thing as nothing?" I don't think so. And if conditions do not result in quasi-stable, inflationary, universe(s) then this logic is not satisfied. Ironically the existence of a law-maker would already satisfy the logic so I wouldn't expect anything further.

[Curious]

Without spacetime how can you have cause and effect exactly?

You can't assume that causality requires a spacetime when major new advances in cosmology indicate that our spacetime could tunnel in from nothing.

Show me why I can't and I won't. What exactly would this cause be to create this effect? Cause and effect are linked with spacetime.

What about the conservation of energy? This most definitely contradicts this unless you are to concede that a negative energy particle would also be simultaneously created or perhaps the spacetime bubbles are devoid of energy.

I've shown that the conservation of energy is valid if negative gravitational energy nulls out the positive energy in the universe.

I must have missed that. I would be interested in examining this particular hypothesis if you would give me details of how this gravitational nullification works.

This then leads us to the possibility of multiple dimensions which you seem to wish to discount with no good cause.
I have already stated that what is conceivable and reasonable cannot be used to back up an argument requiring evidence.

We have evidence of inflation which shows up in the cosmic background radiation. This indicates a quantum origin to the universe which suggests that quantum fluctuations (i.e., zero point energy) are responsible for the structures in the universe.

And this leads us to intelligence how exactly???

What you seem incapable of grasping however is that these particles exist here and now in a universe of vast complexity and an abundance of energy. They come into existence from and within a universe which is most definitely not nothing. How would this be any different from saying that light exists in nothing because we observe it in this universe?

Please keep your tone polite otherwise it's probably better we not continue our discussion.

I was not aware that I was being impolite. If I was then I apologise. To say that a fish seems incapable of flight is not impolite to the fish, it is just an observation. What I meant is that all these virtual particles have never been shown to spontaneously exist in a medium of nothingness. The existence of such particles in this particular medium does not in any way suggest they could spontaneously exist outside this medium.

[harvey1]

"Can there be such a thing as nothing?" I don't think so. And if conditions do not result in quasi-stable, inflationary, universe(s) then this logic is not satisfied. Ironically the existence of a law-maker would already satisfy the logic so I wouldn't expect anything further.

The question is why don't you think nothing can exist. How does a quasi-stable universe satisfy logic? You need a mind in order to know a logical statement has been satisfied.

[Bro Dave]

Is the potential for existance considered something? If so, then the answer is no. Because even before anything existed, there was the potential for it to exist. In fact, that potential for all that will ever exist is still "there", is it not? Even though there is "nothing" to show it will...

Bro Dave