Can Nothing Exist?

minnemooseus asks of me:

quote:

---

Might I ask Stevo3890, Rrhain, and TechnoCore - What is your position in the evolution vs. creationism debate?

---

I think that the general consensus among biologists and others who have spent the greatest amount of effort in the field of biology is that life diversified via evolutionary processes. There is still a lot of work to be done and many questions remained unanswered, but Dobzhansky's comment seems to sum it up:Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.Someday, there may be something that throws it all away, but nothing seems to be on the horizon. So, we go with what we have and everything that we have says evolution.Now, is it possible that god is involved? Of course. Evolution is a process of mutation and selection and there is nothing that says such events cannot be influenced by conscious action. Take a look at human breeding programs. Who is to say that god doesn't have a subtler method of accomplishing the same thing?Of course, I'm not saying in the above that I believe in god (nor am I saying that I don't). I'm simply pointing out that evolution does not preclude god.Too, evolution is about the diversification of life, not its origins nor the origin of the universe. Evolution is compatible with every method of genesis. It doesn't matter if life came into being chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method you could possibly imagine. So long as life does not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.Good enough?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What would we find inside Kent Hovind's head?I rest my case.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

Well, I just fell victim of a crash, an lost a message when I clicked on "preview". The following is a short version of what I was going to say.

quote:

---

Are we supposed to talk about the universe or Evolution In the Cosmology section of this forum? AS Evolution and Cosmology are different topics It would only be natural to talk about Cosmology in the Cosmology section.

---

"Big Bang and Cosmology" forum - place for discussion of inorganic evolution, outside of the earth."Geology and the Great Flood" forum - place for discussion of inorganic evolution of the earth."Evolution" forum - place for discussion of the organic evolution of the earth."Human Origins" forum - place for discussion of the evolution of the human species."Origin of Life" forum - place for discussion of abiogenesis or alternatives to abiogenesis.This topic is an example of an area where I think things are getting into excessively esoteric details. Another example is the heavily technical genetics discussions happening, which seem to be the realm of the biology PhD's only.Well, not a good as the original - but good enough.Moose (with input from Adminnemooseus)------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

I can't believe this. I'm minding my own business, reading about Inflation Theory and I find this: Sorry for the long quote, but here's the bottom line:In the Inflationary Model, one of the best solutions comes from a false vacuum "popping into" existence. On the basis of that I would like to modify my earlier position: I am now not sure at all that "nothing" cannot "exist", insofar as to preclude the possibility that the universe "something" came from "nothing".wr
Geno

Nothing is the space which things occupy or the space in which things exist. If you were able to remove everything, and I do mean absolutely everything from a cubic foot of space, you would have a cubic foot of nothing. If then next to the cubic foot of nothing you had a cubic foot of atmosphere (gasses, vapor and whatever), the space of nothing and the space of atmosphere would appear exactly alike to the human eye.

Here's the official buzzism on nothing:Nothing is that submicroscopic bit of space billions of times smaller than the proton of an atom which some, I say some evolutionists claim exploded billions of years ago to spontaneously become everything which exists.I read an article from the 80's or so by National Geographic's Rich Gore and he made the claim that this submicroscopic bit of space is where it all emerged from. He did indeed use the word, "space" to describe the original source of where the universe emerged from. Anyone who believes that should have no problem believing in supernatural creationism. Creationism, at least, has the advantage of a designer.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-13-2003]

The problem with this is that it ignores findings from physics; namely that in empty vacuum there are millions of particles coming into existence and then disappearing, every instant.So, even in nothing, there's something just popping into existence. "Nature abhors a nothing", I guess.

Imo, space itself (nothing, i.e. area) has no boundaries and never ends. Only things occupying the already eternally existing ever expansive space/area are limited in dimension.

I realize my block of hypothetical empty area is impossible to create in our visible universe. There may be some of it beyond some point out there. Nobody knows for sure. I created it in the mind so as to try to explain nothing.As I think about it though, my statement that the two blocks would appear alike is wrong, for if the nothing block can be seen it would have light rays existing in it, so it would have to be total darkness in order to be totally nothing. This all reminds me of the apocalyptic Biblical bottomless pit where Satan is suppose to be cast into one of these days to remain for the duration of the millenial reign of Christ.Wait a minute.. You would be able to see it in the daytime but not at night. In the daytime, it would appear as a black one cubic foot block.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-13-2003]

So can we assume that nothing does indeed have a color which is black?

Buz, if you can't handle the simple physics you're been shown already, do not attempt this area. There are very few who can really understand it. And to just get a glimpse of what the experts are suggesting is very difficult. Stay with something simpler.

That might have been a question to the people who invented the zero in mathematics. I guess we should just presume nothing exists, if we want to use the zero.I don't think it's inconsistent for nothing to exist, and something to exist also. The relationship between nothing and something is a chance. What's the chance of it raining today? Will rain come into existence, or will it remain nothing? So you see, if there wasn't nothing, then everything what happens would be predetermined by what is, and there would be no chance or choice in it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But you wouldn't. If you removed ABSOLUTELY everything you would have removed space as well as time. You can't have a cubic foot of space if you have removed the space. Space is something. It seems you are talking more about removing all matter but that still leaves you with space-time and energy which is not nothing.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

But zero isn't nothing; it's just a lack of one particular something. If you have zero apples, you don't have nothing, you just have no apples. Zero apples doesn't imply a lack of anything else but apples, so zero isn't strictly nothing.

quote:

---

Buz, if you can't handle the simple physics you're been shown already, do not attempt this area. There are very few who can really understand it. And to just get a glimpse of what the experts are suggesting is very difficult. Stay with something simpler.

---

Nosy, why is it that you think you need to mother me as where to post and what to say and believe? Why don't you stick to refuting specific statements with which you desagree and get off you're high horsey attitude toward those who don't think exactly like you?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-14-2003]