Absolute nothingness

Hi MM. Nice to meetcha. Welcome to EvC. O RLY? Lacking a way to measure it makes it nothing. At any place-time where we lack something to measure, we have nothing, forever and everywhere.Like you said:

quote:

---

The problem is that Nothing simply can not be perceived, for you are only aware of it as an absence of what you can perceive.

---

This absence of perception extends into eternity. But we could when we're using it{eternity"Nothing"} as a description of a lack of magnitude.WRT the edge of The Universe, I think that cavediver is correct in that the word "nothing" is not the correct(or best) word for describing what is non-Universe (past the edge). Its becuase the word nothing gets confused with emptyness and with "emptyness" is where the inaccuracy in the discription starts. Emptyness is better reserved for describing the space between subatomic particles, where points of reference exist. Past the edge of the Universe, or non-existance, isn't accurately described as emptyness because there is no other point(s) of reference.Of course we could call it nothing but the implication of emptyness becomes misleading and leads to the confusion in the OP, IMHO.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : corrected error, changed eternity to nothing

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

If nothing is imperfect, then doesn't that suggest that everything IS perfect o.O? And if everything is perfect, then wouldn't that include nothing ? Regardless, "nothing is imperfect" is pretty much a false statement, don't you think? The limit can be approched, however... Well, zero means nothing without any units.

Yeah, sorry. Sometimes you don't see how unclear something is untill someone quotes you Eternity, aka forever, can be applied to 'Nothing' when 'Nothing' means "a lack of something" because at any place-time where we lack something to measure, we have nothing, forever and everywhere. I didn't mean that {eternity} was a lack of magnitude, I meant when {nothing} is a lack of magnitude. I typed the wrong thing. Sorry for the confusion, my mistake. When you put time constraints on eternity, then it can no longer be used to contain "Nothing", I agree. I guess I disagree that when talking about "Nothing", that we should put constraints on eternity because then how can we say that nothing exists outside of our (space-)time?

I would say that Nature, in and of itself, is imperfect. There's perfect squares(shapes)...and there's perfect squares(numbers). And theoretically an absolute zero.I don't know how the hell you went to no evolutionary progress from that but I don't really care for the purpose of this topic.And "Nothing", itself, is a perfect "lack of something". In and of iself, perhaps, but there can still be elements of nature that are perfect and have no purpose. Like a perfect square.

So is true nothing infinite then?

It only equates to that because we've defined it as "lack of existance", which is what is "outside" the universe. That is how it becomes Everywhere and Forever, even though that becomes contraditory, because if it is assigned a place and time then it is no longer "outside" the Universe, by which it would no longer be nothing.I think infinite nothing might be contradicting itself but it is necessary, by definition, so then "Nothing" becomes a logical impossibility. Which gives us the false statement:Nothing is a logical impossibility.I still think we can say that "Nothing" goes on forever, ie is infinite.Now what about the statement?:Nothing is infinite.I do know one thing...this is getting ridiculous.

Ha! I agree.I think my point was that we cannot say that it{"Nothing"} is not infinite.But don't get that confused with:Nothing is not infinite, or that nothing is finite, as these statements are obviously not true. I agree with that too.