Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Absolute nothingness
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 7 of 35 (388841)
03-08-2007 8:40 AM


Nothing is one of my favourite subjects
For reference the concept of Nothing in relation to the universe is defined as:
  • No thing, not anything, naught
  • No part, no share or trace
  • Something that is non-existent
  • Non-existance or nothingness
  • A cipher or nought - 0 (zero)
  • something that is without quantity or magnitude.
    Or you could check the dictionary here
    DireStraits writes:
    But how can something go on forever, even nothing?
    1. The concept of "Nothing" does not go on forever.
    Eternity, aka forever, is a limiting factor (magnitude) that should not be applied to the concept of 'Nothing'. 'Nothing' is not subject to the 4th dimension of duration, or else you would have some way of measuring it!
    DireStraits writes:
    there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefinitely...with technology could we travel to the edge of the universe, look into the great void beyond...
    2. Nothingness (true nothing) occurs both within & without the Universe - what do you think is between every electron, neutron & proton in your body? Nothing. You don't have to go to the edge of the Universe (if it exists) to find Nothing. There is more space where nothing "exists" than where something does exist! The universe is mostly "composed" of nothing.
    DireStraits writes:
    The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automaticaly invalidates it by giving it definition and substance.
    3. The problem isn't that observing nothing gives it form (or else the Universe would be a much more crowded place, what with all these phyisists creating matter out of nothing!). 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. Compounding the problem is that we do not know how everything in the universe is made, people still argue over what light is! We can not even perceive the Universe correctly yet, so preceiving Nothing is beyond us.
    cavediver writes:
    The problem is "nothing" is the wrong word, as it is too easy to confuse (as above) with "emptyness".
    Emptyness? As in "containing nothing?". Empty is a attempted preception of nothing and just one aspect of the concept of Nothing. A Dictionary definition of nothing is "non-existance", so Nothing is not the wrong word, it just might have been used in the wrong context.

    I think the nature of Nothing is one of the big reasons Religions & Science argue over how the Universe came to be. The concept of all this messy space just defying definition by both religions and science must grate on the nerves.
  • If (an) Intelligent Designer(s) created the matter of the Universe, than nothingness is greater than it/them, as it/they did not create nothing - it was already around (for lack of a better term).
  • If no Designer is involved, then how did Nothing turn into Everything? Is it still happening? By extention, shouldn't matter be turning back into nothing, by the logical conclusion of any equilibrium?
    Needless to say Nothing is a very messy subject.

    Nothing is perfect.
    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.
    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

  • Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2007 10:38 AM MadaManga has replied
     Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 03-08-2007 10:40 AM MadaManga has replied
     Message 18 by cavediver, posted 03-08-2007 5:25 PM MadaManga has replied

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 11 of 35 (388856)
    03-08-2007 11:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Fosdick
    03-08-2007 10:40 AM


    Re: Nothing = zero?
    Actually, that's just my signature...
    Plus, I didn't say Zero, the mathmatical notation of absence.
    One of the definitions of zero is;
    quote:
    a mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.
    Now everyone agrees that negitive number are "Unreal" just like zero, what's your view on them?
    Also, how often is a value put as Zero simply because it's too small to be used feasibly in an equation? Quite often. In these cases zero does not in fact equate to Nothing. Just to keep you thinking.

    Nothing is perfect.
    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.
    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 03-08-2007 10:40 AM Fosdick has not replied

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 12 of 35 (388858)
    03-08-2007 11:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
    03-08-2007 10:38 AM


    Re: Nothing is one of my favourite subjects
    Catholic Scientist writes:
    This absence of perception extends into eternity.
    Eternity, aka forever, is a limiting factor (magnitude) that should not be applied to the concept of 'Nothing'.
    But we could when we're using it{eternity} as a description of a lack of magnitude.
    Hi Catholic Scientist.
    When I say Eternity I mean from the first moment of time until the last moment of time. Thus I assume something which is not influence by time couldn't be contained or measured by Eternity. Could you be clearer in the way you're discribing Eternity? When is it a lack of magnitude?
    Thanks.

    Nothing is perfect.
    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.
    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2007 10:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2007 11:49 AM MadaManga has not replied

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 19 of 35 (388935)
    03-09-2007 4:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 18 by cavediver
    03-08-2007 5:25 PM


    First off;
    cavediver writes:
    a misunderstanding of what constitutes space and what constitutes particles. It certainly has 'nothing' to do with the bandying of the word 'nothing' in the context of 'outside' or 'before' the universe.
    Could you discribe the difference between the space between particles & the space outside of the universe. What about their composition (for lack of a better term) makes them different?

    Secondly;
    Catholic Scientist writes:
    at any place-time where we lack something to measure, we have nothing, forever and everywhere...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?
    The only problem is that if you conceed that point Nothing automatically equates to Everywhere and Forever. But then, that could be the composition of Nothing. Hence, the reason we can't preceive & measure it. (What measures Infinity?)
    Extend the theory, and the only thing you need to do to create Existance from Nothing is to apply duration and placement to Nothing. (And if time is distance, that's just one force).
    OK, that is a big 'only'. But if you could find & create that force, theoretically you could create matter. Scary thought.
    Edited by MadaManga, : Extending comment
    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Nothing is perfect.
    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.
    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by cavediver, posted 03-08-2007 5:25 PM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2007 9:13 AM MadaManga has replied
     Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-09-2007 11:56 AM MadaManga has not replied

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 21 of 35 (388947)
    03-09-2007 9:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 20 by cavediver
    03-09-2007 9:13 AM


    So you're saying the entire concept of Nothing is wrong.
    The whole universe has something present, even at the smallest magnitudes beyond conception. There is no point of Total Absence.
    I guess the way to prove or disprove that theory is to find the energy that exists at every point of existance, a Universal constant, as it were.
    Oh, and I never said there was an edge to the Universe, just meant that there is no point in wasting resources going to a theoretical edge to study the nature of nothing.
    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2007 9:13 AM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 22 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2007 10:54 AM MadaManga has replied
     Message 24 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2007 11:20 AM MadaManga has replied

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 23 of 35 (388953)
    03-09-2007 11:06 AM
    Reply to: Message 22 by cavediver
    03-09-2007 10:54 AM


    But Einstein's theory of Vacuum Energy is contended because the maths behind it makes the energy 120 times larger than what is needed to cause the Universe to expand at its current rate.
    Physicists contended it with supersymmetry theory, which cancels out vacuum energy completely.
    And yes, I am just looking at a copy of New Scientist. I don't know this stuff off the top of my head.

    Nothing is perfect.
    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.
    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2007 10:54 AM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2007 12:39 PM MadaManga has not replied

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 26 of 35 (388958)
    03-09-2007 11:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
    03-09-2007 11:20 AM


    Re: true Nothingness
    What is conciousness?
    Well, here is one Creationist theory on conciousness I came across in another forum;
    quote:
    From the writings of a Hindu Creationist;
    First of all, consciousness does not come from a combination of chemicals. Consciousness is a non-material energy. Thus, consciousness exists before, during, and after the material creation. This means that the origin of the material cosmos and all life within it must also be consciousness, a Supreme Consciousness from whom come all other forms of consciousness that take up residence in the varieties of material bodies or species found in this material creation.
    Of course, no one has proven that conciousness has a specific energy.
    Maybe it the energy that exists everywhere, in an odd joining of science & religion.

    Nothing is perfect.
    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.
    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2007 11:20 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by Straggler, posted 03-10-2007 4:01 AM MadaManga has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024