Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
29 online now:
Captcass, jar, Tanypteryx, Taq (4 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,696 Year: 16,732/19,786 Month: 857/2,598 Week: 103/251 Day: 56/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Absolute nothingness
DireStraits
Junior Member (Idle past 4521 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 01-31-2007


Message 1 of 35 (381619)
01-31-2007 10:29 PM


Hi, Laymen here and found this interesting site.

Nothingness/eternity.

Is there any more mind boggling a concept to get your head around?.

Space is big and empty, but its still filled with particles and energy. However the universe is finite in this regard as you reach the frontier expansion wave of the BB there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefinitely. But how can something go on forever, even nothing? :/ and then if infact it does not and is cyclical or in some way 'ends' then again you are left with a finite structure or volume, conseqeuntially what is then outside of this?.

Which leads back to nothing and does that nothing exist for ever.

Or say for example there is a limited void after which a neighbouring universe beings much like the void between galaxies. In this case do new universes go on forever etc?, back to square one.

Something ive often considered is with technology could we travel to the edge of the universe, look into the great void beyond and then hurl an asteroid into the void which would then 'move' through the void at a constant velocity for eternity. Although then by nature of existing in the void it would in effect become and extension of the universe as we can only percieve its existence relative to our own and our universe.

In this sense I am limited by my own perceptions. The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automaticaly invalidates it by giving it definition and substance. So how do you understand anything beyond the universe.

Whew, blows, my, mind.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added some blank lines between (apparent) paragraphs.

Edited by DireStraits, : No reason given.

Edited by DireStraits, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-01-2007 1:36 PM DireStraits has responded
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-02-2007 12:11 PM DireStraits has not yet responded
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 02-02-2007 12:30 PM DireStraits has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 35 (381646)
02-01-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DireStraits
01-31-2007 10:29 PM


DireStraits writes:

The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automatically invalidates it by giving it definition and substance. So how do you understand anything beyond the universe.

Welcome to EvC, Dire! ;) Do you want this to be a science/cosmology topic or a Faith/Belief topic? We are at the proverbial fork in the road. Also, if you would, look at some of the links below in my signature to get a grasp as to what our forum guidelines are.

Do let me know which Forum you want your topic consideration to fit, and we can go from there.



GOT QUESTIONS? You may click these links for some feedback:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Forum Guidelines
    ***************************************
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by DireStraits, posted 01-31-2007 10:29 PM DireStraits has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by DireStraits, posted 02-01-2007 2:57 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

        
    DireStraits
    Junior Member (Idle past 4521 days)
    Posts: 4
    Joined: 01-31-2007


    Message 3 of 35 (381666)
    02-01-2007 2:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
    02-01-2007 1:36 PM


    Hi, could you put it in science/cosmology please.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-01-2007 1:36 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

        
    AdminTL
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 35 (381871)
    02-02-2007 10:17 AM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
      
    Hyroglyphx
    Member
    Posts: 5800
    From: Austin, TX
    Joined: 05-03-2006
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 5 of 35 (381912)
    02-02-2007 12:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by DireStraits
    01-31-2007 10:29 PM


    Ephemeral or eternal?
    Nothingness/eternity.

    Is there any more mind boggling a concept to get your head around?

    Nope.... Which is why cosmology is probably the most tentative discipline in all of science. There are so many things that are counter-intuitive about the cosmos and in relation to time-space-matter. When we think we know something about it, there is another theory waiting around the bend to subvert it, with another one behind waiting to the subvert the next.

    Space is big and empty, but its still filled with particles and energy. However the universe is finite in this regard as you reach the frontier expansion wave of the BB there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefintly. But how can something go on forever, even nothing? :/ and then if infact it does not and is cyclical or in some way 'ends' then again you are left with a finite structure or volume, conseqeuncetialy what is then outside of this?.

    In order for there to be end, there must conceivably be a beginning. Perhaps the universe is a lot like a sea, in that, unless there is something in relation, like a land mass, its just one big swirling and undulating entity, with no discernible beginning or end.

    If there is an 'end,' I don't believe we can identify that in linear terms, but in terms of the universe itself not existing. But who knows, the beginning of this universe could have been the end of another, and so on, or that there are multiverses or multiple planes of existence. How mean, how can we come to terms with that conceptually? We are so bound to the laws of physics in this dimension that conceiving such abstract concepts that differ from what our reality has never been seen outside of an abstract mathematical equation.

    Which leads back to nothing and does that nothing exist for ever.

    Since we don't know what "nothing" truly means, I couldn't know with Newtonian precision.

    I am limited by my own perceptions. The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automaticaly invalidates it by giving it definition and substance. So how do you understand anything beyond the universe.

    Exactly... Like I said, we are just too bound by what we know or think we know to really grasp these kinds of abstract concepts. I find cosmology fascinating, but I tend not to post in here because its so theoretical to the point of absurdity.

    I guess all that we can do is try and continue to trod along the best we can with the limited information we have at present.

    Whew, blows, my, mind.

    Yeah, it blows everyone's mind.


    "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by DireStraits, posted 01-31-2007 10:29 PM DireStraits has not yet responded

        
    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 1899 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 6 of 35 (381918)
    02-02-2007 12:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by DireStraits
    01-31-2007 10:29 PM


    However the universe is finite in this regard as you reach the frontier expansion wave of the BB there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefintly.

    You are falling into your own trap :) How can "nothing" go on indefinitely? The problem is "nothing" is the wrong word, as it is too easy to confuse (as above) with "emptyness". More appropriate terms might be "non-existence" or "lack-of-existence".

    Fortunately we do not have to deal with "non-existence" very much. There is no "frontier expansion wave" of the Universe. The Universe is either infinite or compact, which means in either case there is no edge. To say the Universe is expanding is to simply say that the distances between things (sufficiently separated things like super-clusters) are getting bigger. I guess our 4d Universe could have an edge where it adjoins some higher dimensional bulk space, which is a string/M-theory type concept, but even then it is not "nothing" beyond the edge - just the larger "true" Universe.

    The Universe exists. That which is not the Universe does not exist. If it did, it would be included in with the Universe. Simple really :)

    Actually, it can be more complex than this but that's for another day...

    Whew, blows, my, mind

    Good :)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by DireStraits, posted 01-31-2007 10:29 PM DireStraits has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 03-08-2007 4:21 PM cavediver has not yet responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4465 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 responded
     Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 03-08-2007 10:40 AM MadaManga has responded
     Message 18 by cavediver, posted 03-08-2007 5:25 PM MadaManga has responded

      
  • New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 35 (388853)
    03-08-2007 10:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by MadaManga
    03-08-2007 8:40 AM


    Re: Nothing is one of my favourite subjects
    Hi MM. Nice to meetcha. Welcome to EvC.

    1. The concept of "Nothing" does not go on forever.

    O RLY?

    'Nothing' is not subject to the 4th dimension of duration, or else you would have some way of measuring it!

    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.

    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"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"


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by MadaManga, posted 03-08-2007 8:40 AM MadaManga has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by MadaManga, posted 03-08-2007 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

      
    Fosdick 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3756 days)
    Posts: 1793
    From: Upper Slobovia
    Joined: 12-11-2006


    Message 9 of 35 (388854)
    03-08-2007 10:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by MadaManga
    03-08-2007 8:40 AM


    Nothing = zero?
    Nothing is perfect.

    No, nothing is imperfect, because it is the only value that cannot be used as an algebraic denominator. (This assumes of course that nothing equates to zero.)

    —HM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by MadaManga, posted 03-08-2007 8:40 AM MadaManga has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2007 11:00 AM Fosdick has responded
     Message 11 by MadaManga, posted 03-08-2007 11:08 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

        
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 35 (388855)
    03-08-2007 11:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Fosdick
    03-08-2007 10:40 AM


    Re: Nothing = zero?
    nothing is imperfect

    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 :D? Regardless, "nothing is imperfect" is pretty much a false statement, don't you think?

    because it is the only value that cannot be used as an algebraic denominator

    The limit can be approched, however...

    (This assumes of course that nothing equates to zero.)

    Well, zero means nothing without any units.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 03-08-2007 10:40 AM Fosdick has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Fosdick, posted 03-08-2007 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4465 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 yet responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4465 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 responded

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

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 35 (388859)
    03-08-2007 11:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by MadaManga
    03-08-2007 11:23 AM


    Re: Nothing is one of my favourite subjects
    Could you be clearer in the way you're discribing Eternity?

    Yeah, sorry. Sometimes you don't see how unclear something is untill someone quotes you :o

    Eternity, aka forever, is a limiting factor (magnitude) that should not be applied to the concept of 'Nothing'.

    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.

    When is it {eternity} a lack of magnitude?

    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 I say Eternity I mean from the first moment of time until the last moment of time.

    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?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by MadaManga, posted 03-08-2007 11:23 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    Fosdick 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3756 days)
    Posts: 1793
    From: Upper Slobovia
    Joined: 12-11-2006


    Message 14 of 35 (388863)
    03-08-2007 12:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
    03-08-2007 11:00 AM


    Re: Nothing = zero?
    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?

    Maybe the question is: Is nature perfect or imperfect? I would posit that nature is only perfectly imperfect. There really is no perfect equality, no perfect vacuum, no absolute zero, no evolutionary progress, no ontological purpose, no hope for entropy reversal or eternal Truth, just a profusion of chaos that has little swirls of order here and there to make us think we can claim some measure of perfection in an imperfect world.

    Nature would have to have a purpose to be perfect. (And why would God need to roll the dice so often if He really had a purpose?)

    —HM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2007 11:00 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2007 12:15 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

        
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 15 of 35 (388865)
    03-08-2007 12:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Fosdick
    03-08-2007 12:03 PM


    Re: Nothing = zero?
    Maybe the question is: Is nature perfect or imperfect?

    I would say that Nature, in and of itself, is imperfect.

    There really is no perfect equality, no perfect vacuum, no absolute zero, no evolutionary progress, no ontological purpose, no hope for entropy reversal or eternal Truth, just a profusion of chaos that has little swirls of order here and there to make us think we can claim some measure of perfection in an imperfect world.

    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".

    Nature would have to have a purpose to be perfect.

    In and of iself, perhaps, but there can still be elements of nature that are perfect and have no purpose. Like a perfect square.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Fosdick, posted 03-08-2007 12:03 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019