What Is. Nothingness
When nothing is still a dimension of some kind.
I know nobody knows. But i thought i would ask.
I know nobody knows. But i thought i would ask.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
zeggle · 61-69, M
@DDonde“I love to talk about nothing. It's the only thing I know anything about.” ― Oscar Wilde
Perhaps you prefer a definition of nothing that contains literally “no things” in it at all. If you follow that line of thinking, then the first definition is inadequate: it clearly contains “something.” In order to achieve nothingness, you’ll have to get rid of every fundamental constituent of matter. Every quantum of radiation has to go. Every particle and antiparticle, from the ghostly neutrino to whatever dark matter is, must be removed.
If you could somehow remove them all—each and every one—you could ensure that the only thing that was left behind was empty space itself. With no particles or antiparticles, no matter or radiation, no identifiable quanta of any type in your Universe, all you’d have left is the void of empty space itself. To some, that’s the true scientific definition of “nothingness.”
But certain physical entities still remain, even under that highly restrictive and imaginative scenario. The laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have.
And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it’s still at its current, positive, non-zero value. Today, this manifests itself as dark energy; before the Big Bang, this manifested in the form of cosmic inflation, whose end gave rise to the entire Universe. This is where the phrase, “a Universe from nothing” comes from. Even without matter or radiation of any type, this form of “nothing” still leads to a fascinating Universe.
Perhaps you prefer a definition of nothing that contains literally “no things” in it at all. If you follow that line of thinking, then the first definition is inadequate: it clearly contains “something.” In order to achieve nothingness, you’ll have to get rid of every fundamental constituent of matter. Every quantum of radiation has to go. Every particle and antiparticle, from the ghostly neutrino to whatever dark matter is, must be removed.
If you could somehow remove them all—each and every one—you could ensure that the only thing that was left behind was empty space itself. With no particles or antiparticles, no matter or radiation, no identifiable quanta of any type in your Universe, all you’d have left is the void of empty space itself. To some, that’s the true scientific definition of “nothingness.”
But certain physical entities still remain, even under that highly restrictive and imaginative scenario. The laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have.
And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it’s still at its current, positive, non-zero value. Today, this manifests itself as dark energy; before the Big Bang, this manifested in the form of cosmic inflation, whose end gave rise to the entire Universe. This is where the phrase, “a Universe from nothing” comes from. Even without matter or radiation of any type, this form of “nothing” still leads to a fascinating Universe.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@zeggle I read your response to DDonde. Your thinking is based on science-based knowledge. Your definition of "nothing" is within the paradigm of physics, one of the branches of the hard sciences.
The philosophical definition of "nothing" transcends the boundary of empirical and theoretical science. This is a different approach to the inquiry into "nothing". It calls into question the nature of, not only knowledge itself but also that of the inquirer.
Do you want to venture that deep?
The philosophical definition of "nothing" transcends the boundary of empirical and theoretical science. This is a different approach to the inquiry into "nothing". It calls into question the nature of, not only knowledge itself but also that of the inquirer.
Do you want to venture that deep?
sree251 · 41-45, M
@zeggle You said: "To keep it simple if possible. [b]If you inquire what nothing is, you actually admit there is nothing! Subsequently nothing does not exist[/b]."
Ok, let's keep it simple and just deal with logic. Language, like math, is a linguistic code. Let's replace "nothing" with X. In mathematical terms. What you are saying above can be translated as follows:
[b]If you inquire what X is, you actually admit there is X! Subsequently X does not exist.[/b]
Does what you say make any sense to you?
Ok, let's keep it simple and just deal with logic. Language, like math, is a linguistic code. Let's replace "nothing" with X. In mathematical terms. What you are saying above can be translated as follows:
[b]If you inquire what X is, you actually admit there is X! Subsequently X does not exist.[/b]
Does what you say make any sense to you?
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.
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.