Why is there not nothing?

[Boerseun]

The ninjas snatched it. }(

[freeztar]

the answer to that question can be explained by the expression: 0/0

its undefined, thus we don't understand it

but 0/0=1, and 0/0=0, or rather, it could be either, both, or neither

existence is the same way: all that is is a singularity, it's only the mind that separates anything; it does so as a simplification to more easily understand things

yet nothing exists, because all that is has been or ever will be believed or known is simply an extension of another reality, like a memory, a current perception, or a thought; and any of these, when traced back forever, have no origin

existence is

nothing is

existence is nothing

nothing is existence

1=0, 0=1, both are true simultaneously, neither is true

I do not know if anyone understands this, but that is how I explain it: 0/0

 

Very poetic, I like it.

 

It makes me think about quantum indeterminism. :)

[HappytheStripper]

Have you ever heard the phrase.. that from nothing come somethings which in turns becomes everything.. and then when you find something which was eventually everything you simply go back to nothing..??

 

Ashley

[secnarf]

Why is there not nothing? Surely in the beginning there should have been nothing? Yet there is a universe. Some say God created the universe but where did he come from? Surely there should be no universe and no God? Yet there is something!

 

Switchy:shrug:

is nothing a concept that we humans created?

if you look at nature there is never a nothing. sometimes very little is happening so it seems like nothing, but never nothing.

nothing and something, to me, sounds a little like, beginning and ending. once again if you look at nature youll see there is no beginning and no ending. only transition.

these are the things i think of when questioning the nothing vs something idea.

secnarf.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

There is an idea that in the beginning there was definitely something. A single ball of energy containing everything. This ball was just created by all the energy in the universe contracting back to the source, a reaction of all the energy in the universe expanding into the nothingness, i.e., the BIG BANG. The ball of energy contained all the energy and therefore all the heat possible in existance. This ball then begins to expand again, a reaction of the contraction. The nothingness outside of the energy is all the matter in the universe. It is nothing because it is at absolute zero and ceases to take up mass. It is technically nothing without energy. And that's about it. Nothing does exist, but not literally. Nothing only exists literally as the opposite of everything.:)

[secnarf]

so....

nothing can only exist if theres something to compare it to.ie as per your example, everything?

yeah.....or not really?

secnarf

[Pyrotex]

so....

nothing can only exist if theres something to compare it to.ie as per your example, everything?

yeah.....or not really?

secnarf

According the great Polish-American philosopher, Alfred Korzybski, one must always distinguish between the "objects" in the real world (out there) and the linguistic "symbols" for those objects in our minds (in here).

 

There are symbols (say, "planet") that have corresponding objects out there. There are symbols (say, "love") that do not have corresponding objects out there. And there are symbols (say, "nothing") that do not have corresponding objects out there, but do describe a state or property of objects out there.

 

The confusion arises when we insist that a symbol such as "nothing" must correspond to an object, when in fact, it doesn't. Remember, "nothing" is a symbol in our mental Map of the universe -- and the Map is not the Territory.

[TomA]

Why there is not "nothing" is a very good question. All the answers I have seen, however, are strictly philosophic and do not answer the question.

 

I consider this question from the viewpoint of physics and believe I have a good answer. But, not one that you might expect.

 

First, it must be assumed that the existence of the universe (the opposite of nothing") is a natural effect and not dependent on a prior effect. So, the first thing is to formulate this mathematically. The idea of "nothing" is equivalent to no input or no source of energy in the space. The LaPlace equation represents this idea mathematically. A simple version of the LaPlace equation assuming it represents a potential energy is given by

 

 

d^2P/d^2x + d^2P/d^2y + d^2P/d^2z = 0.

 

Here, the d represents a partial differentiation. This equation has the simple solution

 

P = 1/r

 

which can be checked by substituting

 

P = 1/(Sqr(x^2 + y^2 + z^2))

 

into the LaPlace equation. The math gets complicated with all the differentiation but it all works out in the end.

 

So, something results from "no sources". Of course, sources would be like a charged particle or a mass particle which are not assumed present. The 1/r function shows that something, in this case energy, must be present. This result is equivalent to something from nothing.

 

Also, the solutions of the LaPlace equation represent the smoothest possible harmonic (sin or cos) solutions with respect to any other function. This is proved in some books on partial differential equations.

 

This is also a starting point for showing how the universe arises basically.from just this simple equation. Note that the potential associated with gravitation or electro-statics has the 1/r form. In fact, if you wish to characterize the universe in one sentence, it might be as follows:

 

"The universe is just the solutions of the LaPlace equation."

 

There are, of course, an infinite number of solutions for a partial differential equation depending on the boundary conditions. So, the LaPlace equation in theory can certainly represent the universe. However, it's a long way between this characterization and the present configuration of the universe.

 

As stated in my introduction, I have spent the last 45 years in getting to the point where I have some understanding of the universe. I now have a very interesting model of the universe - very different from the current model with the big-bang possible origin or the string theory of basic physics.

 

I'll have more to say on the model of the universe later. Right now, I am interested in any comments on what I have said.

 

TomA

[HydrogenBond]

If you do a volume comparison of the universe, there is more nothing than there is not nothing. For example, if you look at an atom, most of its volume is nothing, with the not nothing electron taking up a lot of nothing's space, to give the impression not nothing is something. All the not nothing, within the universe compresses into the volume of a grape. In the end, the not nothing is trying to make nothing, not nothing, even though nothing adds up to the universe minus a grape.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Re: Why is there not nothing? - 08-30-2007, 02:14 PM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

In the Beginning, there was Nothing. Well, maybe not Nothing exactly, but certainly not much. There was some litter and debris left over from the Beginning Party which had been held the eon before, but that was about it. You know, confetti, candy wrappers, funny paper hats, drinking straws, that sort of thing. Well actually, not that many drinking straws, as half of them had consisted of antimatter, and by the Beginning, nearly all of them had annihilated with their matter counterparts. This had set some of the confetti on fire, so there was also some ash at the Beginning, but not much because... this is going badly. Let me start over.

 

In the Beginning, for all practical purposes, there was next to Nothing. I mean, yeah, the debris left over from a really big blow-out party might amount to trillions of tons, but it was spread over so vastly, vastly, vastly vast a volume that the average density was... was... well... was like a single dust bunny in Hugh Hefner's mansion.

 

Wait! I know, you're thinking of Bunnies. A dust bunny is different, let me tell you. Now, to be precise, there were a butt load of gorgeous, skantily clad female beings at the Beginning Party (as you would expect!!!), but they weren't made of dust, and... oh, never mind. I'm getting off track again.

 

In the Beginning, there was a LOT of Nothing, especially around the edges. (There, that's better!) Please ignore the occassional dust bunny, as they are not really representative of the state of the Universe at the Beginning. Mostly, the Universe was Nothing--pure Nothing, with no additives. Except for the tiny amount of confetti ash that was left over. And a few (very, very, very few, like not even enough to count, so I don't even know why I mention it) bikini tops. God damn, that was one fine party! They don't call it the "Big Bang" for Nothing! ...uhhh...

 

[coff! coff!] Where was I? Nothing! Yes! In the Beginning, there was a predominate essence of Nothing that prevailed. Of course, the actual moment that we define as "the Beginning" is a little hard to pin down, because there wasn't a whole freakin' lot going on at the time, you know what I mean? The hooch was all drunk up, the babes were either all passed out, or had sneaked off behind the other Universes to indulge in a little... you know, and all the antimatter straws had annihilated with the...

 

Did I say "other Universes"? Sorry, I didn't mean that. My mistake. Mea culpa. Forget I ever said that. There was Nothing at the Beginning, you hear me? Nothing at all. The underwear laying about doesn't count worth a damn, and I don't want it mentioned again, you understand? Sheesh, the flak I have to put up with from you zombies. All you ever think about is sex, sex, sex. It's enough to make me wanna...

 

Okay, listen. This is the LAST time I'm gonna tell you. There was the Beginning, okay? That was like, you know, the START. Of everything. Except the party. Scratch that! Forget the party. The Beginning was Nothing. I mean it was the start of Nothing. [crap] It was the START. And there was Nothing there! I mean, like, there it was: Nothing. And it was good.

 

Any questions?

 

...uhh... you're not gonna start a religion with this, are you?

 

That was the best post I've ever read...period...hands down!!!

 

 

 

Got's to be a Monty fan:)

 

Idle or Cleese? (Yes the spelling is likely improper. I shall punish the chimp later...I can't right now as he is still typing....Don't write that!!! Nor that either!!! stoopid monkey!!!!!!!!!stop....st....stop typing!!!!!....stopit...st!!!..stop.....I'll shoot...stopit!!!!!!)

 

 

Why is there not nothing?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is there not nothing? Surely in the beginning there should have been nothing? Yet there is a universe. Some say God created the universe but where did he come from? Surely there should be no universe and no God? Yet there is something!

 

Switchy

Don't feel bad I've asked myself and many many others the same questions over and over again....no answer.:confused:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Tis only a flesh wound.....he'll live....well I think he'll live....more of a scratch really....a teeny pin-prick...poor thing...just a little fellow typing is poor lil heart out and I shot im....poor lil guy...

 

Incidently........

"Always look on the bright side of life":singer:

[Garry Denke]

the answer to that question can be explained by the expression: 0/0

its undefined, thus we don't understand it

but 0/0=1, and 0/0=0, or rather, it could be either, both, or neither

1=0, 0=1, both are true simultaneously, neither is true

I do not know if anyone understands this, but that is how I explain it: 0/0

 

Actually 0/0 was defined 2000 years ago and 33% people

have been teaching 0/0 definition for millennia,

 

0/0 = Father = 0

0/0 = Son = 1

0/0 = Holy Ghost = infinity...

 

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,

 

0, 1, & infinity...

 

:shrug: 0^0

[Pyrotex]

Tis only a flesh wound.....he'll live....well I think he'll live....more of a scratch really....a teeny pin-prick...poor thing...just a little fellow typing is poor lil heart out and I shot im...

Look on the bright side, DD,

he was just about to type out Shakespeare's "missing scene" from Hamlet, and the secret recipe for Macy's chocolate oatmeal cookies.

 

Can't have that, now can we? :) :eek: :shrug:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

THERE'S A MISSING SCENE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Shows how much I know dont' it...:)

 

By the way Switchy there's a whole thread dedicated to nothing here.

It's even called Nothing.....and it's full of nothing....oh so full of it!

You should check it out if you haven't already, perhaps even contribute ...:eek:

[jedaisoul]

Why is there not nothing? Surely in the beginning there should have been nothing? Yet there is a universe. Some say God created the universe but where did he come from? Surely there should be no universe and no God? Yet there is something!

 

The question "Why is there not nothing?" presumes that there is a reason why there is not nothing. If there is a reason, then there is a cause. So the question itself assumes that there was an entity that caused there to be something. But if there was an entity that caused there to be something, then there was not nothing in the first place! So the question itself is revealed to be self contradictory. it is meaningless.

 

The conclusion we can draw is that there is no reason why there is not nothing. Futhermore there cannot be a reason why there is not nothing, because, if there were a reason then there would have to be a cause and a causer.

 

How's that for logic?

[LJP07]

The question "Why is there not nothing?" presumes that there is a reason why there is not nothing. If there is a reason, then there is a cause. So the question itself assumes that there was an entity that caused there to be something. But if there was an entity that caused there to be something, then there was not nothing in the first place! So the question itself is revealed to be self contradictory. it is meaningless.

 

The conclusion we can draw is that there is no reason why there is not nothing. Futhermore there cannot be a reason why there is not nothing, because, if there were a reason then there would have to be a cause and a causer.

 

How's that for logic?

 

That's actually brilliant reasoning and so many people ask that question, next time I'll redirect them to this post for an answer.:)

[jedaisoul]

That's actually brilliant reasoning and so many people ask that question, next time I'll redirect them to this post for an answer.:)

 

Thanks.