Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What Is. Nothingness

When nothing is still a dimension of some kind.
I know nobody knows. But i thought i would ask.
Zaphod42 · 51-55, M
That’s impossible to actually imagine. Even when you picture “nothing” in your mind, you picture an absence of anything in a void that is still something 🤷‍♂️
sree251 · 41-45, M
@Zaphod42 Great reply. It is rare, and I always appreciate a good mind in this rat hole of a forum. You deserve a look at a discussion in depth on Nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Yt6IdA7q4&t=156s
Zaphod42 · 51-55, M
@sree251 Thank you! That was a treat! To be fair though, I’m sure I was just regurgitating something I once heard Tyson, Cox, Kaku or someone like that say in a video I was listening to while gaming. “Nothing” is a difficult thing for me to come to terms with. I can accept that even in a perfect void, absent of even the strangest or most charming of quarks, the scaffolding of space-time still exists., but the universe expanding out into “nothing” is a mind bender. It’s easier for me to think that the universe as we know it is the result of a quantum vacuum decay event overwriting an older higher energy universe, that dark energy is the conversion of that higher energy state into the expansion rate of the decay border and dark matter as the possible ashes of the process. I’m probably wrong, but it’s still less taxing on my brain than trying to consider “nothing”. 🤷‍♂️
zeggle · 61-69, M
@Zaphod42 Yea i'm with you on that. Point here is. We can theorise where something comes from or where nothing comes from because of taking something out, leaving nothing. So what came first. Something or Nothing. Are you assuming. Nothing is the creator!
redredred · M
People sometimes ask what the Big Bang exploded into. That’s the actual point, there was nothing. The Big Bang was the expansion of everything, space included.

Nothing is the total absence of all measurable quantities and qualities including location.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@redredred Right
Well yeah even an empty void is something. I guess it would be the absent of any dimensions. I guess the best way to describe it would be where you were before you were born.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@MrBlueGuy Very good. I like your attempt to respond to the OP.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
It deppends on what means "nothing".
If about the Universe as researched by Science, our view of it began to change with the Einstenian Relativity.
The old philosophical / "common sense" concept of space as an empty geometrical container of stuff (or else supposed to be "nothingness") felt by then.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@ElRengo I can grasp what you are alluding to, but your argument is not well stated. I suspect English is not your first language. Are you from a non-western culture?
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@sree251
True, English is not my first language.
And no, not from a non-western culture at all.
Southern Cone of South America.

About my argument, it´s not really mine.
But a well known and documented fact of the historical development of Science.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@ElRengo Thanks for the clarification. Whose argument are you quoting? If you are citing theories of physics, they are not within the realm of sense perception. Nothingness is not a theory.
SlaveEt · 36-40, F
It's a concept that doesn't really exist like one or zero. Waaay beyond my ability to explain it but there you go, something else to ponder😉
zeggle · 61-69, M
@sree251 Don't confuse Physics with Philosophy then.
SlaveEt · 36-40, F
sree251 · 41-45, M
@zeggle You said: "Don't confuse Physics with Philosophy then."

Why do you make this comment in response to my statement below:

A non-existent concept? Wow, this is more mind-boggling to grasp than "Nothingness".

If I were to rephrase my statement above in mathematical terms to test its logical integrity, I get:

A Y (non-existent concept)? Wow, this is more mind-boggling to grasp than X (Nothingness).

The above rephrased statement is quite clear. It is plain straight thinking. Where is the confusion in terms of Physics and Philosophy?
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
There are some brilliant explanations on YouTube how modern physics thinking suggests that what we call 'The vacuum of space' doesn't actually exist.

It's defined as a vacuum simply because it doesn't contain what we call air.
But it has all the constituents of air !
meJess · F
Absence is quantifiable concept when applied to everyday items. Nothingness is total absence so should be quantifiable but only by deduction given there would be no tangible evidence.
ABCDEF7 · M
Those who practice the true meditation, understands it well.

The concept is similar to the concept of darkness. Darkness is not opposite of light, it is absence of light.
JamesBugman · 56-60, T
Since "Something" can only be evaluated by a living thing, I would say "Nothingness" is when you die.
Me. At least me for the first three to four years that I was here.
Thevy29 · 41-45, M
Its whats left of your paycheck when tax is taken out.
brokensignal · 46-50, M
In the world of something we don’t know nothing. 😉
sree251 · 41-45, M
@brokensignal I would rephrase your statement this way:

We are a world of things. It is like the alphabet of 24 letters (A, B, C, etc).

No letters, no alphabet.

Similarly, no things, no world (i.e no us.)
SW-User
Nothingness is the void we manifest from.
calicuz · 56-60, M
Nothingness is where that void of everything is.
StarLily · 51-55, F
Perhaps a state of neutrality or non-duality.
badminton · 61-69, MVIP

Nothingness...
@badminton I mean it certainly looks desolate but there's still the gas station, the plants..the ground, the sky...
Fertilization · 36-40, F
Nothing is nothing.
RuyLopez · 56-60, M
DDonde · 31-35, M
It's relative to the presence of other things. It is the absence of other things in mind. It's not meaningful to talk about as an independent thing.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@zeggle You said: "The last X is not an X."

Ok, let's correct the translation. Let's replace the last X with Y and restate what you said:

If you inquire what X is, you actually admit there is X! Subsequently Y does not exist.


Does that make any sense to you now?
zeggle · 61-69, M
@sree251 I think you maybe confusing XY with the notion of there is nothing which does not exist. In physics it appears more acceptable but in philosophy it's harder to grasp for some.
I'll have go. X - X = X
sree251 · 41-45, M
@zeggle Me confused? Please go through our conversation carefully. I am trying to pin down what you are saying. As I said, language is a logic code. If we use language (in our case, It is English), it is easy to analyze the soundness of our reasoning by checking it out in terms of math equations. It is easy to flush out crooked thinking. X-X=X doesn't make sense.

Berating each other in not the right approach in cooperative learning. Insisting that X-X=X does not advance human learning. It is a doctrinal equation, not a logical one. It's similar to insisting that God created things out of nothing. And there are billions of people who believe and accept that.

 
Post Comment