|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Absolute nothingness | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DireStraits Junior Member (Idle past 6265 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Hi, Laymen here and found this interesting site.
Nothingness/eternity. Is there any more mind boggling a concept to get your head around?. Space is big and empty, but its still filled with particles and energy. However the universe is finite in this regard as you reach the frontier expansion wave of the BB there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefinitely. But how can something go on forever, even nothing? :/ and then if infact it does not and is cyclical or in some way 'ends' then again you are left with a finite structure or volume, conseqeuntially what is then outside of this?. Which leads back to nothing and does that nothing exist for ever. Or say for example there is a limited void after which a neighbouring universe beings much like the void between galaxies. In this case do new universes go on forever etc?, back to square one. Something ive often considered is with technology could we travel to the edge of the universe, look into the great void beyond and then hurl an asteroid into the void which would then 'move' through the void at a constant velocity for eternity. Although then by nature of existing in the void it would in effect become and extension of the universe as we can only percieve its existence relative to our own and our universe. In this sense I am limited by my own perceptions. The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automaticaly invalidates it by giving it definition and substance. So how do you understand anything beyond the universe. Whew, blows, my, mind. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added some blank lines between (apparent) paragraphs. Edited by DireStraits, : No reason given. Edited by DireStraits, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
DireStraits writes: The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automatically invalidates it by giving it definition and substance. So how do you understand anything beyond the universe. Welcome to EvC, Dire! Do you want this to be a science/cosmology topic or a Faith/Belief topic? We are at the proverbial fork in the road. Also, if you would, look at some of the links below in my signature to get a grasp as to what our forum guidelines are. Do let me know which Forum you want your topic consideration to fit, and we can go from there. GOT QUESTIONS? You may click these links for some feedback:
*************************************** New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out: "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU" AdminPhat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DireStraits Junior Member (Idle past 6265 days) Posts: 4 Joined: |
Hi, could you put it in science/cosmology please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminTL Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Nothingness/eternity. Is there any more mind boggling a concept to get your head around? Nope.... Which is why cosmology is probably the most tentative discipline in all of science. There are so many things that are counter-intuitive about the cosmos and in relation to time-space-matter. When we think we know something about it, there is another theory waiting around the bend to subvert it, with another one behind waiting to the subvert the next.
Space is big and empty, but its still filled with particles and energy. However the universe is finite in this regard as you reach the frontier expansion wave of the BB there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefintly. But how can something go on forever, even nothing? :/ and then if infact it does not and is cyclical or in some way 'ends' then again you are left with a finite structure or volume, conseqeuncetialy what is then outside of this?. In order for there to be end, there must conceivably be a beginning. Perhaps the universe is a lot like a sea, in that, unless there is something in relation, like a land mass, its just one big swirling and undulating entity, with no discernible beginning or end. If there is an 'end,' I don't believe we can identify that in linear terms, but in terms of the universe itself not existing. But who knows, the beginning of this universe could have been the end of another, and so on, or that there are multiverses or multiple planes of existence. How mean, how can we come to terms with that conceptually? We are so bound to the laws of physics in this dimension that conceiving such abstract concepts that differ from what our reality has never been seen outside of an abstract mathematical equation.
Which leads back to nothing and does that nothing exist for ever. Since we don't know what "nothing" truly means, I couldn't know with Newtonian precision.
I am limited by my own perceptions. The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automaticaly invalidates it by giving it definition and substance. So how do you understand anything beyond the universe. Exactly... Like I said, we are just too bound by what we know or think we know to really grasp these kinds of abstract concepts. I find cosmology fascinating, but I tend not to post in here because its so theoretical to the point of absurdity. I guess all that we can do is try and continue to trod along the best we can with the limited information we have at present.
Whew, blows, my, mind. Yeah, it blows everyone's mind. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
However the universe is finite in this regard as you reach the frontier expansion wave of the BB there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefintly. You are falling into your own trap How can "nothing" go on indefinitely? The problem is "nothing" is the wrong word, as it is too easy to confuse (as above) with "emptyness". More appropriate terms might be "non-existence" or "lack-of-existence". Fortunately we do not have to deal with "non-existence" very much. There is no "frontier expansion wave" of the Universe. The Universe is either infinite or compact, which means in either case there is no edge. To say the Universe is expanding is to simply say that the distances between things (sufficiently separated things like super-clusters) are getting bigger. I guess our 4d Universe could have an edge where it adjoins some higher dimensional bulk space, which is a string/M-theory type concept, but even then it is not "nothing" beyond the edge - just the larger "true" Universe. The Universe exists. That which is not the Universe does not exist. If it did, it would be included in with the Universe. Simple really Actually, it can be more complex than this but that's for another day...
Whew, blows, my, mind Good
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MadaManga Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days) Posts: 31 From: UK Joined: |
For reference the concept of Nothing in relation to the universe is defined as:
Or you could check the dictionary here
DireStraits writes: But how can something go on forever, even nothing? 1. The concept of "Nothing" does not go on forever. Eternity, aka forever, is a limiting factor (magnitude) that should not be applied to the concept of 'Nothing'. 'Nothing' is not subject to the 4th dimension of duration, or else you would have some way of measuring it!
DireStraits writes:
2. Nothingness (true nothing) occurs both within & without the Universe - what do you think is between every electron, neutron & proton in your body? Nothing. You don't have to go to the edge of the Universe (if it exists) to find Nothing. There is more space where nothing "exists" than where something does exist! The universe is mostly "composed" of nothing.
there is presumably true nothing beyond and that that nothingness goes on indefinitely...with technology could we travel to the edge of the universe, look into the great void beyond... DireStraits writes:
3. The problem isn't that observing nothing gives it form (or else the Universe would be a much more crowded place, what with all these phyisists creating matter out of nothing!). The problem is that Nothing simply can not be perceived, for you are only aware of it as an absence of what you can perceive. Compounding the problem is that we do not know how everything in the universe is made, people still argue over what light is! We can not even perceive the Universe correctly yet, so preceiving Nothing is beyond us.
The very act of trying to perceive absolute nothingness automaticaly invalidates it by giving it definition and substance. cavediver writes:
Emptyness? As in "containing nothing?". Empty is a attempted preception of nothing and just one aspect of the concept of Nothing. A Dictionary definition of nothing is "non-existance", so Nothing is not the wrong word, it just might have been used in the wrong context. The problem is "nothing" is the wrong word, as it is too easy to confuse (as above) with "emptyness". I think the nature of Nothing is one of the big reasons Religions & Science argue over how the Universe came to be. The concept of all this messy space just defying definition by both religions and science must grate on the nerves.
Needless to say Nothing is a very messy subject. Nothing is perfect. Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing. Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi MM. Nice to meetcha. Welcome to EvC.
1. The concept of "Nothing" does not go on forever. O RLY?
'Nothing' is not subject to the 4th dimension of duration, or else you would have some way of measuring it! Lacking a way to measure it makes it nothing. At any place-time where we lack something to measure, we have nothing, forever and everywhere. Like you said:
quote: This absence of perception extends into eternity.
Eternity, aka forever, is a limiting factor (magnitude) that should not be applied to the concept of 'Nothing'. But we could when we're using it{ WRT the edge of The Universe, I think that cavediver is correct in that the word "nothing" is not the correct(or best) word for describing what is non-Universe (past the edge). Its becuase the word nothing gets confused with emptyness and with "emptyness" is where the inaccuracy in the discription starts. Emptyness is better reserved for describing the space between subatomic particles, where points of reference exist. Past the edge of the Universe, or non-existance, isn't accurately described as emptyness because there is no other point(s) of reference. Of course we could call it nothing but the implication of emptyness becomes misleading and leads to the confusion in the OP, IMHO. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : corrected error, changed eternity to nothing Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nothing is perfect.
No, nothing is imperfect, because it is the only value that cannot be used as an algebraic denominator. (This assumes of course that nothing equates to zero.) ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
nothing is imperfect If nothing is imperfect, then doesn't that suggest that everything IS perfect o.O? And if everything is perfect, then wouldn't that include nothing ? Regardless, "nothing is imperfect" is pretty much a false statement, don't you think?
because it is the only value that cannot be used as an algebraic denominator The limit can be approched, however...
(This assumes of course that nothing equates to zero.) Well, zero means nothing without any units.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MadaManga Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days) Posts: 31 From: UK Joined: |
Actually, that's just my signature...
Plus, I didn't say Zero, the mathmatical notation of absence. One of the definitions of zero is;
quote: Now everyone agrees that negitive number are "Unreal" just like zero, what's your view on them? Also, how often is a value put as Zero simply because it's too small to be used feasibly in an equation? Quite often. In these cases zero does not in fact equate to Nothing. Just to keep you thinking. Nothing is perfect. Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing. Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MadaManga Junior Member (Idle past 6209 days) Posts: 31 From: UK Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: This absence of perception extends into eternity. Eternity, aka forever, is a limiting factor (magnitude) that should not be applied to the concept of 'Nothing'. But we could when we're using it{eternity} as a description of a lack of magnitude. Hi Catholic Scientist.When I say Eternity I mean from the first moment of time until the last moment of time. Thus I assume something which is not influence by time couldn't be contained or measured by Eternity. Could you be clearer in the way you're discribing Eternity? When is it a lack of magnitude? Thanks. Nothing is perfect. Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing. Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Could you be clearer in the way you're discribing Eternity? Yeah, sorry. Sometimes you don't see how unclear something is untill someone quotes you
Eternity, aka forever, is a limiting factor (magnitude) that should not be applied to the concept of 'Nothing'. Eternity, aka forever, can be applied to 'Nothing' when 'Nothing' means "a lack of something" because at any place-time where we lack something to measure, we have nothing, forever and everywhere.
When is it {eternity} a lack of magnitude? I didn't mean that {eternity} was a lack of magnitude, I meant when {nothing} is a lack of magnitude. I typed the wrong thing. Sorry for the confusion, my mistake.
When I say Eternity I mean from the first moment of time until the last moment of time. When you put time constraints on eternity, then it can no longer be used to contain "Nothing", I agree. I guess I disagree that when talking about "Nothing", that we should put constraints on eternity because then how can we say that nothing exists outside of our (space-)time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
If nothing is imperfect, then doesn't that suggest that everything IS perfect o.O? And if everything is perfect, then wouldn't that include nothing ? Regardless, "nothing is imperfect" is pretty much a false statement, don't you think?
Maybe the question is: Is nature perfect or imperfect? I would posit that nature is only perfectly imperfect. There really is no perfect equality, no perfect vacuum, no absolute zero, no evolutionary progress, no ontological purpose, no hope for entropy reversal or eternal Truth, just a profusion of chaos that has little swirls of order here and there to make us think we can claim some measure of perfection in an imperfect world. Nature would have to have a purpose to be perfect. (And why would God need to roll the dice so often if He really had a purpose?) ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Maybe the question is: Is nature perfect or imperfect? I would say that Nature, in and of itself, is imperfect.
There really is no perfect equality, no perfect vacuum, no absolute zero, no evolutionary progress, no ontological purpose, no hope for entropy reversal or eternal Truth, just a profusion of chaos that has little swirls of order here and there to make us think we can claim some measure of perfection in an imperfect world. There's perfect squares(shapes)...and there's perfect squares(numbers). And theoretically an absolute zero. I don't know how the hell you went to no evolutionary progress from that but I don't really care for the purpose of this topic. And "Nothing", itself, is a perfect "lack of something".
Nature would have to have a purpose to be perfect. In and of iself, perhaps, but there can still be elements of nature that are perfect and have no purpose. Like a perfect square.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024