Can Nothing Exist?

Ha! I knew it. I hit the nail on the head, didn't I?Just kidding. You're right, of course, I'mm terribly off topic.Maybe I'll let you answer me in the free for all forum.

'Well, thanks. You are actually rather pleasant compared to many Creationists. For example, you haven't condemned any of us to eternal hellfire yet, so that's good. 'can you point out who condemned you for me?'This makes me scientific, not dogmatic. Religion is dogmatic, because one belives it no matter what evidence is out there which contradicts it.'show me the all conquering evidence? yawn, cos so far its the usual boring ape to man sketch!

quote:

---

'Well, thanks. You are actually rather pleasant compared to many Creationists. For example, you haven't condemned any of us to eternal hellfire yet, so that's good. '

​

can you point out who condemned you for me?

---

Well, there have been at least a couple of dozen nice Christian folks who have told me that I am going to hell over the years on this and other discussion boards. Let's see, I think that the most recent has been Jet, but that was a while ago.Anyway, that was kind of a joke, anyway.

quote:

---

'This makes me scientific, not dogmatic. Religion is dogmatic, because one belives it no matter what evidence is out there which contradicts it.'

​

show me the all conquering evidence? yawn, cos so far its the usual boring ape to man sketch!

---

There's much, much more than an "ape man sketch", Mike. There's actual bones to look at. And millions of fossil animals. And at least a dozen dating methods. And observable mutation resulting in phenotypic change. And a great deal more evidence which has been accumulating for 200 years.It's all out there, waiting for you to read it and learn about it.You could do a lot worse than TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversyThere you will find very good basics as well as more technical evidence for evolution. The thing is, it takes a bit of effort and work to learn and understand what is a very large and diverse body of evidence. If you want to know the basics and the details of the ToE, you are going to have to do some real studying.I would also recommend reading the following short essays about what science is and what creationism is WRT science.science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comThe good news is that Evolutionary Biology is really freaking cool, and there are a lot of super interesting things to learn about.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

OK Schraf. If I see it I'll respond.

Hi again Schraf. Thanks for the links. I'll have a look, but very busy this summer and little time for reading. Wups, I see now the links were for Mike. Anyhow, I'll have a look.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-16-2003]

Wow, 4 whole pages about nothing. Well, if you rephrase the question to be "can nonexistence exist?" then answer will be so blatently obvious that it wouldn't be worth asking. But I guess the english language can cloud even the most obvious facts.

quote:

---

But I guess the english language can cloud even the most obvious facts.

---

I second that motion.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Excellent, Buz. I agree that Talkorigins is large, but the other two links shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to read.Anyway, how can you be too busy to read for an entire summer? I mean, I really can't go for more than a couple of days without reading, but I guess that's me.

That might be true, if it wasn't a chance that the watervapor turned to rain, but a certainty. You should distinguish between cause and effect, and chance and outcome, they are not the same.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Or zero is nothing, and apples are just anything out of an infinite number of possible things.regards,
Nando

Hi, firstly for me this is a great topic.Three questions.1. How could they conduct an experiment on 'nothing' as the Casimir experiment seemed to have done ? Surely if there are virtual particles, then there isn't nothing , there is something. Besides, surely its impossibly to create 'nothing' in the first place so that we can test it ?2. Why has there no been more 'BIG BANGS', from nothing ? If the Big Bang originated from nothing and essentially created the universe, then what is to prevent another random 'BIG BANG' ?3. The assumption is that time only started with the Big Bang and the assumption now that the universe will not contract by dark energy and will expand indefinitely. If that is the case, then this universe is either unique (IE: first universe not to contract back to nothingness) or it it not the only universe ?Sorry for my ignorance.

quote:

---

1. How could they conduct an experiment on 'nothing' as the Casimir experiment seemed to have done ? Surely if there are virtual particles, then there isn't nothing , there is something. Besides, surely its impossibly to create 'nothing' in the first place so that we can test it?

---

The term "creation from nothing" is a bit misleading here. The particles are not created out of some prior energy being transformed, but that doesn't mean the vacuum itself is nothing. Even in the complete absence of virtual particles, matter and energy, a vacuum is still something, namely the gravitational field.

quote:

---

2. Why has there no been more 'BIG BANGS', from nothing ? If the Big Bang originated from nothing and essentially created the universe, then what is to prevent another random 'BIG BANG'?

---

To add to the confusion, the nothing prior to the big bang is a different concept. This void is a state where there is no spacetime, but the laws of physics still exist. This creation ex nihilo, is not compatible with an infinite universe. What is stopping another big bang from happening? Well, nothing. Under inflation models, big bangs will occur continuously into the future, allowing spacetime to be immortal, so to speak.

quote:

---

The assumption is that time only started with the Big Bang and the assumption now that the universe will not contract by dark energy and will expand indefinitely. If that is the case, then this universe is either unique (IE: first universe not to contract back to nothingness) or it it not the only universe?

---

Under the same inflation models, certain regions in empty space can inflate to expanding universes like our own. In that sense, our universe may just be a small part of a larger, expanding multiverse.

I believe there are some very interesting philosophical ramifications if we're to say that non-existence cannot exist. Namely it suggests there is singularly one existence and that this has no relation with non-existence. It is, in essence, incomparable. This gives us the conclusion that the fundamental nature of existence is the same. This can bring a new perspective as to a casual event and brings in question the very notion of definability. In maths we only value things as we perceive them. Bergson suggested the notion of time as a measure of objective reality as flawed, ‘a succession of perceptions is not a perception of successionwe experience time as duration' (Bergson). Modern physics can demonstrate how existence on a sub atomic level a haze only made definable by the observer. On this level things only appear exhibit a behaviour by the very fact they are being observed. If the fundamental nature is the same then existence isn't changed but ‘moulded.’ We know we exist but only directly in our awareness of existence, but I cannot be non-existent so I must exist in some form. We are wrong to think the values which we attribute are correct, but is it undeniable that there are neverless a perspective of correctness? Are we able to say that although the fundamental nature of existence eludes us, it is nevertheless, one single thing?[This message has been edited by loot, 01-30-2004][This message has been edited by loot, 02-04-2004]

If by the term "nothing" you mean in our universe, I would say no.
If you mean in an absolute sense, I would say yes. But we could not experience it, of course, because "nothing" would be its own universe, just as zero is its own number in an infinite series.I think I know where the "nothing" argument wants to go, but that is already covered in the "Something from Nothing" forum.