Does nothing exist?
Posted by: Chillkram on 16 November 2006
And by the act of existing does it subsequently negate itself and become something.
What actually is nothing? We use the word to mean the absence of something, but even the vacuum of space contains something. If not matter then forces, or light, or the 'fabric' of spacetime itself which we are told is curved. If it has a shape it cannot be nothing.
Did nothing exist before the big bang or act of creation (delete according to belief) and will it exist after the destruction or has the universe always existed? Is there in fact no such thing as nothing?
Is nothing what we experience when we are dead? Although, being dead, we cannot experience it as there is no conscious. Can nothing only be nothing if it is observed to be so or, by being observed does it become something again?
I guess I have always assumed the natural state of the universe to be nothing and the something that we observe has been imposed upon it, but perhaps the natural state is actually of something and that nothing is only a concept that could not possibly be.
Obviously this is a topic that philosophers have discussed down the years but I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on this.
Mark
Posted on: 16 November 2006 by BigH47
I know nothing!
Posted on: 16 November 2006 by acad tsunami
'Nothing' is the mere absense of 'something' thus nothing is dependent on something for its existence and vice-versa.
Consider this:
A different thing depends upon a different thing for its difference. Therefore a different thing does not exist!
The quality of nothingness depends upon the quality of somethingness therefore neither exists independently of the other. Their relationship is one of interdependence or co-origination (they come into existence in dependence of each other) but neither exists independently of the other so nothing and something in fact do not exist as independent categories at all!!
There are theories dealing with the birth of the universe other than the big bang or Biblical creation - There is the big bounce theory - that the universe collapses in on itself then expands - then collapses etc. I prefer this theory as it is consistant with the philosophical necessity for the universe to be infinately old and beginingless as there can be no such thing as a first cause.
Acad scratching his head
Posted on: 16 November 2006 by Chillkram
Acad
I am aware of the 'big bounce' theory and I find this the most comfortable theory of the universe to believe. There is also the 'steady state' theory of Fred Hoyle, largely discredited these days but which also rules our 'first cause' and deals with an infinite universe.
My point is that first cause requires that nothing exists and is the natural state onto which the universe is imposed.
If we rule out first cause then I cannot see how nothing can exist. If it can, what is it? In an infinite universe is it possible to have an absence of something?
Mark
Posted on: 16 November 2006 by Big Brother
This is one of those constructs that keeps you awake at night trying to get to the bottom of it.
For some reason, your thread opener reminded me of Don Rumsfelds soliloquy on "known unknowns" ect..
Here's a moron's view.
Nothing, can be one of two things:
a) a word in the english language
b) a concept
It cannot be the abscence of all things (time, space, dimension, energy, matter ect.) or something unknowable we have no word for, or idea of, because then it would cease to be "nothing".
Therefore nothing is always a thing, and not what we would imagine nothing to be.
I have no clue about the origins of the universe, I guess you had to be there.
BB
Posted on: 16 November 2006 by Big Brother
Sorry, I realize now that all I did was paraphrase your opening sentence. It took dumbo here, awhile, to figure out what you were saying.
Cheers
Big Brother
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Chillkram
No problem BB.
quote:
This is one of those constructs that keeps you awake at night trying to get to the bottom of it.
I've long given up staying awake at night on this one.
quote:
Therefore nothing is always a thing, and not what we would imagine nothing to be.
But then we come back to the fact that it ceases to be nothing again.
Perhaps there is a difficulty with the definition of nothing which could be argued 'round and 'round in circles for ever and a day.
But it is the concept that I am interested in. How can there be a complete lack of anything?Perhaps the limitations of the human mind are the problem here (well maybe mine!). Or maybe as we have never experienced an absence of something, we cannot possibly comprehend it.
For me it is interesting to hear other peoples' 'take' on this as there is not a definitive answer.
Or maybe it is, as you suggest, just a philosophical construct designed to 'gainfully' employ a load of wastrels in talking crap!
Mark
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Basil
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
You don't need to go back prior to the Big Bang to ask this question: given that the universe is finite and is about 14 billion light years in diameter, what "exists" beyond that?
I suspect the answer is "nothing" although the question itself is probably meaningless.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Aiken Drum
I think Terry Pratchett has got it right in the Discworld
Brad
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:
Nice link, Basil, thanks.
So the premise of Stenger's argument is that something is the natural state. Does this not then rule out the single big bang and invite the 'big bounce' theory?
Mark
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Ears
quote:
Originally posted by Chillkram:
Acad
I am aware of the 'big bounce' theory and I find this the most comfortable theory of the universe to believe. There is also the 'steady state' theory of Fred Hoyle, largely discredited these days but which also rules our 'first cause' and deals with an infinite universe.
My point is that first cause requires that nothing exists and is the natural state onto which the universe is imposed.
If we rule out first cause then I cannot see how nothing can exist. If it can, what is it? In an infinite universe is it possible to have an absence of something?
Mark
Hello Mark
This is an interesting thread which I shall follow. The difficulty of the subject is illustrated by the ambiguity of the phrase "nothing exists" which can be interpreted as "There is something which we call nothing" or "There is not one item at all which has existence".
We may be better off trying to define what existence is.
Best wishes, Ears
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Don Atkinson
The limitations of the human mind exposed.
IMHO human minds are VERY limited. We think we are clever. Compared to our ancestors we probably are very clever. We think we have a lot of imagination. But at the end of the day we have REAL difficulty imagining
Nothing
No beginning
No end
Infinity
The concept of a “god”
The concept of “no god”
My view (I have no proof at all) is that:-
There never was an absolute beginning
There never will be an absolute end
The Universe is large but not infinite
The Universe might have had a beginning and it might have an end
The Big-Bang probably wasn’t the absolute beginning of the Universe
The Universe has probably “Bounced” a few times
We have absolutely no idea whatsoever when and how the Universe really started
Beyond the Universe is Something and beyond that something else etc etc etc
Out to infinity (and beyond!)
Is there a “god”
Do we have an “after life”
Did we have a “before-life”
I hope so, but I don’t know.
What do I REALLY think
We haven’t got the imagination necessary to conceive the reality of
Who we are
Where we are
Why we are here
But we keep trying and like to talk about it
One day – we might figure it out
Or be told by Jesus at His second comming
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
The limitations of the human mind exposed.
IMHO human minds are VERY limited. We think we are clever........But we keep trying and like to talk about it.
One day – we might figure it out
Or be told by Jesus at His second comming
Cheers
Don
Don
Perhaps this is why we find it so uncomfortable to think about these things. But also the more we do, the more likelihood that one day we will be able to comprehend. Is the brain not like a muscle; the more you excercise it the more it grows?
Mark
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
The Big-Bang probably wasn’t the absolute beginning of the Universe
It was of
this Universe
quote:
The Universe has probably “Bounced” a few times
Possibly. No data to support or deny. File under Stephen Baxter
quote:
We have absolutely no idea whatsoever when and how the Universe really started
We have a lot of data that gives us a pretty good indication of how and when the Universe began (background radiation, understanding of nuclear and sub-nuclear process, movement of galaxies etc.) So 'absolutely no idea whatsoever' is wrong.
quote:
We haven’t got the imagination necessary to conceive the reality of
Speak for yourself.
quote:
Who we are
I'm Me
quote:
Where we are
We are in the physical universe
quote:
Why we are here
Chance occcurrences of physical and chemical phenomena made us. See it's easy.....
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Chillkram:
Is the brain not like a muscle; the more you excercise it the more it grows?
Mark
If that was true my head would be the size of the Millennium dome.
Stephen
PS Does the same apply to the penis?
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:
Originally posted by Ears:
Hello Mark
This is an interesting thread which I shall follow. The difficulty of the subject is illustrated by the ambiguity of the phrase "nothing exists" which can be interpreted as "There is something which we call nothing" or "There is not one item at all which has existence".
We may be better off trying to define what existence is.
Best wishes, Ears
I think therefore I amRene Descartes
Sorry Ears, a bit flippant.
I suppose my view would be that existence, ie. the state of being of the universe(s)(not man), is the natural order. There is no 'non-existence' to consider as existence has always been and will always be as Don suggests above.
But, as Don also suggests, whichever theory you cling to you are met with a concept that is impossible to grasp.
The limitations are within the human mind.
Regards
Mark
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Stephen B
quote:
PS Does the same apply to the penis?
If that was true my penis would be the size of......
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Chillkram
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
PS Does the same apply to the penis?
Sadly not although my right forearm is huge!
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
[QUOTE]
See it's easy.....
And wrong.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Big Brother
Christianity, of course, at least admits the futility of knowing the nature and origins of the universe. preferring to put it all on God.
I must admit, there is some comfort in taking that approach.
BB
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
[QUOTE]
See it's easy.....
And wrong.
*sigh*
Great argument there.
Stephen
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by Big Brother:
Christianity, of course, at least admits the futility of knowing the nature and origins of the universe. preferring to put it all on God.
I must admit, there is some comfort in taking that approach.
BB
Yes, in the same way it is comforting to children to believe in Santa claus.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Big Brother
That was my point.
But we all agree to keep an open mind, since we have no proof either way, only a lot of "evidence", which we can interpret any way we want.
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by Big Brother:
That was my point.
But we all agree to keep an open mind since we have no proof either way, only a lot of "evidence" which we can interperet any way we want.
Okidoki
Posted on: 17 November 2006 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Originally posted by Big Brother:
But we all agree to keep an open mind since we have no proof either way, only a lot of "evidence" which we can interpret any way we want.
I can speak only for myself; but when an "open mind" means accepting the possibility of God, then my mind is fully made up. People can believe whatever mumbo-jumbo they want (and if God is what you want, then the more the merrier I say) but include me out.
