Nothing from Something?

[Myles]

Yes.

Then I concede your point. I always assumed that nothing was nothing and that was it. I was clearly wrong.

So if one adds a small zero to a bigger zero, does the bigger zero absorb the smaller one, thus becoming bigger still, or dies the smaller zero reduce the size of the bigger zero and either become bigger itself or give rise to a third zero. I find this difficult to get my head around.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Then I concede your point. I always assumed that nothing was nothing and that was it. I was clearly wrong.

So if one adds a small zero to a bigger zero, does the bigger zero absorb the smaller one, thus becoming bigger still, or dies the smaller zero reduce the size of the bigger zero and either become bigger itself or give rise to a third zero. I find this difficult to get my head around.

Mathematically, zeros don't change in size. However, that's one of the reasons I am using 0+0=0 as an analogy. Now, nothingness should be able to change in size, because what's to stop it from doing so? Your questions in terms of nothingness are valid questions, and I am not sure of the answers though there may well be answers.

 

[draqon]

nothingness does not have a defined size. Only when something exists and lacks in itself does nothingness exist.

 

[John J. Bannan]

nothingness does not have a defined size. Only when something exists and lacks in itself does nothingness exist.

Wrong. Multiple nothingnesses would have relative sizes. If nothingness exists, it would have to have size. We are back again to the crux of the question, does nothingness exist?

 

[Myles]

nothingness does not have a defined size. Only when something exists and lacks in itself does nothingness exist.

I was beginning to understand all this and now you have gone and confused me.

Let me give you an edxample of what I believe I have discovered by thinking along the lines that John has suggested.

Imagine a vessel which has been evacuated. You must agree that there is now a vacuum in that vessel and a vacuum is nothing. Now, By measuring the internal dimensions of the interior of the vessel befor it is evacuated, I can express the co-ordinates and hence the volume of nothingness within.

If I now take a vessel twice as big as the first then the nothingness in this case is twice as big as in the first. I can continue indefinitely and in theory create an infinity of nothingnesses, each of a different size.

I believe this proves John's point

 

[Enmos]

I was beginning to understand all this and now you have gone and confused me.

Let me give you an edxample of what I believe I have discovered by thinking along the lines that John has suggested.

Imagine a vessel which has been evacuated. You must agree that there is now a vacuum in that vessel and a vacuum is nothing. Now, By measuring the internal dimensions of the interior of the vessel befor it is evacuated, I can express the co-ordinates and hence the volume of nothingness within.

If I now take a vessel twice as big as the first then the nothingness in this case is twice as big as in the first. I can continue indefinitely and in theory create an infinity of nothingnesses, each of a different size.

I believe this proves John's point

It is wrong. Nothingness is the absence of everything, so it can't have dimension, a location or whatever.
What you are describing is a local, relative, vacuum. Not nothingness.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So, am I to understand that you cannot find any inconsistency between my theory and space-time, relativity or quantum field theory? As for whether my theory can make predictions, it does predict an interaction between space and matter. And we all know, that Einstein's theory that matter warps space has been proven by light bending around the Sun.

1. You have no theory
2. The fact your work isn't inconsistent with known physics doesn't make it right or valid or worth while. What exactly does your 'theory' add?
3. Relativity wasn't proven, it was demonstrated superior to Newtonian mechanics by the bending of light around the sun.

For someone whose supposedly a philosopher surely you know the difference between proof and the lack of falsification? After all, absense of proof is not proof of absense (as used for the question of the existence of God). Einstein himself said that no number of experiments can prove him right but it only takes one to prove him wrong. All you can do when you do an experiment to test your theory is pass to test another day. When it fails, a new theory is developed to explain all previous results AND the new one.

Given the fact the science has failed to explain the existence of somethingness, regardless of how complicated its theories can get, that's pretty good evidence that somethingness came from nothingness.

So the fact we've not got an answer yet means your answer is the best path? And we're back to you trying to go down the same route as religious nuts.

 

[John J. Bannan]

It is wrong. Nothingness is the absence of everything, so it can't have dimension, a location or whatever.
What you are describing is a local, relative, vacuum. Not nothingness.

This is an interesting math problem. 0+0=0. Because you can add two zeros together, the zeros must exist as separate entities. But, if the zeros are separate entities, then why would they only equal one zero? It seems to me that zero in mathematics exists, but has no size. How can something exist and yet have no size? That's clealy what the equation 0+0=0 is suggesting. Otherwise, 0+0 could not equal 0, but would have to equal only 0+0. Nonetheless, you could argue that zero by its very existence must have some size, but it is so tiny, it is irrelevant for purposes of mathematics, and hence zero plus zero is almost (but not quite) exactly the same as zero.
The same with nothingness. If nothingness exists, it must have some size. Isn't that what existence is all about? However, perhaps the size of nothingness is so incredibly small, that it takes a whole hell of a lot of multiple nothingnesses to create something the size as matter. Isn't this similar to the Big Bang? An extremely small point explodes into the universe? Question: How big was the point that started the Big Bang? It seems to me that it must have had some size (however small), otherwise it could never have existed.

 

[John J. Bannan]

1. You have no theory
2. The fact your work isn't inconsistent with known physics doesn't make it right or valid or worth while. What exactly does your 'theory' add?
3. Relativity wasn't proven, it was demonstrated superior to Newtonian mechanics by the bending of light around the sun.

For someone whose supposedly a philosopher surely you know the difference between proof and the lack of falsification? After all, absense of proof is not proof of absense (as used for the question of the existence of God). Einstein himself said that no number of experiments can prove him right but it only takes one to prove him wrong. All you can do when you do an experiment to test your theory is pass to test another day. When it fails, a new theory is developed to explain all previous results AND the new one.
So the fact we've not got an answer yet means your answer is the best path? And we're back to you trying to go down the same route as religious nuts.

My theory adds an explanation for existence, that science has not found. You don't need to explain how nothingness came to be. If matter derives from nothingness, you don't need to explain how matter came to be. Thus, the existence of the universe can be explained as a property of nothingness.

 

[John J. Bannan]

It is wrong. Nothingness is the absence of everything, so it can't have dimension, a location or whatever.
What you are describing is a local, relative, vacuum. Not nothingness.

Nothingness can have dimension and location by the nature of its very existence. Existence implies dimension and location.

 

[Myles]

It is wrong. Nothingness is the absence of everything, so it can't have dimension, a location or whatever.
What you are describing is a local, relative, vacuum. Not nothingness.

Nothing is not the absence of everything; it is the presence of nothingness, which proves that nothingness has an independent existence. Everythingness subsumes nothingness, again proving that nothingness exists.

Please accept trhat there is a limit to which these esoteric concepts can be clarified for thye non-philosopher. You must simply think harder about the whole issue.

Can I suggest that you read all of John's posts on this thread. You will find that his posts have an inherent consistency, something which cannot be said of the other posts, mine included. It might help if you made notes as you went along.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Nothing is not the absence of everything; it is the presence of nothingness, which proves that nothingness has an independent existence. Everythingness subsumes nothingness, again proving that nothingness exists.

Please accept trhat there is a limit to which these esoteric concepts can be clarified for thye non-philosopher. You must simply think harder about the whole issue.

Can I suggest that you read all of John's posts on this thread. You will find that his posts have an inherent consistency, something which cannot be said of the other posts, mine included. It might help if you made notes as you went along.

Right. By the way, I am still puzzled by the equation 0+0=0. In order to add two things together, don't those things have to exist? However, doesn't existence itself imply some quantity of size? Therefore, mathematically speaking, isn't it incorrect to say the 0+0 is exactly the same size as just one zero? But, math does say that 0+0=0. Isn't that equation internally inconsistent, unless you assume that the size of zero is so tiny that it doesn't matter for the purposes of math that zero has a size albeit tiny?

 

[Enmos]

This is an interesting math problem. 0+0=0. Because you can add two zeros together, the zeros must exist as separate entities. But, if the zeros are separate entities, then why would they only equal one zero? It seems to me that zero in mathematics exists, but has no size. How can something exist and yet have no size? That's clealy what the equation 0+0=0 is suggesting. Otherwise, 0+0 could not equal 0, but would have to equal only 0+0. Nonetheless, you could argue that zero by its very existence must have some size, but it is so tiny, it is irrelevant for purposes of mathematics, and hence zero plus zero is almost (but not quite) exactly the same as zero.
The same with nothingness. If nothingness exists, it must have some size. Isn't that what existence is all about? However, perhaps the size of nothingness is so incredibly small, that it takes a whole hell of a lot of multiple nothingnesses to create something the size as matter. Isn't this similar to the Big Bang? An extremely small point explodes into the universe? Question: How big was the point that started the Big Bang? It seems to me that it must have had some size (however small), otherwise it could never have existed.

Who says that the big bang was the start of the universe ?

 

[Enmos]

Nothing is not the absence of everything; it is the presence of nothingness, which proves that nothingness has an independent existence. Everythingness subsumes nothingness, again proving that nothingness exists.

Please accept trhat there is a limit to which these esoteric concepts can be clarified for thye non-philosopher. You must simply think harder about the whole issue.

Can I suggest that you read all of John's posts on this thread. You will find that his posts have an inherent consistency, something which cannot be said of the other posts, mine included. It might help if you made notes as you went along.

You are right..
John my apologies.
Never mind my previous post.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

O.K. so out of nothing comes something. It seems this is about 'first cause', or a refutation of 'god' as in: "see, no need for 'god'." (no, I have not read the whole thread,I have read many of the OP's posts tho)
The idea of out of nothing came something, to me as a pantheist is not inconsistent with my idea/understanding of god. For whereas if nothing begat something, who's to say matter was first? Maybe it was energy, since matter is energy contained. Maybe it was consciousness. Maybe energy developed consciousness. Maybe all three came into manifestation at once.
:shrug:

 

[draqon]

can someone please outline what exactly we are disagreeing here?

some of us say that nothingness exists
some of us say that nothingness does not exist
some of us say that nothingness is a characteristic of lack of part of that something
some of us say that nothingness has a proportionality within lack of part of something and that is a proof that it exists...

am I right?

 

[Myles]

O.K. so out of nothing comes something. It seems this is about 'first cause', or a refutation of 'god' as in: "see, no need for 'god'." (no, I have not read the whole thread,I have read many of the OP's posts tho)
The idea of out of nothing came something, to me as a pantheist is not inconsistent with my idea/understanding of god. For whereas if nothing begat something, who's to say matter was first? Maybe it was energy, since matter is energy contained. Maybe it was consciousness. Maybe energy developed consciousness. Maybe all three came into manifestation at once.
:shrug:

Didn't Einstein sy something like that ? Matter and energy are interchangeable, so some form of spiritual energy could have given rise to matter.

 

[draqon]

Myles...if universe is cyclic...we could be that spiritual energy.

 

[Myles]

can someone please outline what exactly we are disagreeing here?

some of us say that nothingness exists
some of us say that nothingness does not exist
some of us say that nothingness is a characteristic of lack of part of that something
some of us say that nothingness has a proportionality within lack of part of something and that is a proof that it exists...

am I right?

Are you asking for a simple explanation of advanced concepts ? If so, have you done the necessary groundwork ?

 

[draqon]

Are you asking for a simple explanation of advanced concepts ? If so, have you done the necessary groundwork ?

dude...I am asking what exactly are people in this thread are arguing about, I see patterns of people refuting "nothingness" and accepting "nothingness".