Something from Nothing?

[Iacchus]

From this thread

Not true. Your notions of "nothing" still do not demonstrate understanding.

I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first. Whereas any notion we may have of nothing, simply arises out of our inability to establish anything outside of what we know and perceive. So, just because we may not be aware of it, by no means implies that nothing is there ... notwithstanding that we may perceive it as the total absence of everything that we know. Now what is the problem with that?

 

[DanishDynamite]

From this thread

I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first. Whereas any notion we may have of nothing, simply arises out of our inability to establish anything outside of what we know and perceive. So, just because we may not be aware of it, by no means implies that nothing is there ... notwithstanding that we may perceive it as the total absence of everything that we know. Now what is the problem with that?

No idea what you are on about. Nothing is nothing. One only needs to introduce the concept of "something" to help explain the concept to morons.

 

[Mercutio]

From this thread

I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first. Whereas any notion we may have of nothing, simply arises out of our inability to establish anything outside of what we know and perceive. So, just because we may not be aware of it, by no means implies that nothing is there ... notwithstanding that we may perceive it as the total absence of everything that we know. Now what is the problem with that?

You are asserting something, people have corrected you, and you are asserting it again. That is all that you are doing here.

At least this clears up some of your earlier confusion--it is not that you misunderstood the concept of "nothing", it is that you say it does not exist. An even greater misunderstanding, actually.

 

[Iacchus]

You are asserting something, people have corrected you, and you are asserting it again. That is all that you are doing here.

Unless of course you are wrong about what you say below.

At least this clears up some of your earlier confusion--it is not that you misunderstood the concept of "nothing", it is that you say it does not exist. An even greater misunderstanding, actually.

Yet all we have to do, is admit that nothing is a relative term.

 

[Iacchus]

I'm saying there's no such thing as nothing, without its relation to something and, that that something has always existed first.

Now, just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea here, the nothing I'm referring to, is the nothing which is often alleged to exist prior to the Big Bang. And no Mercutio, I'm not necessarily pointing the finger at anyone!

 

[rjh01]

There is a major problem with this question. Is there something called 'nothing?' Quantum mechanics say the answer is no. It comes under the uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with how good your measurement instruments are.

 

[Iacchus]

There is a major problem with this question. Is there something called 'nothing?' Quantum mechanics say the answer is no. It comes under the uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with how good your measurement instruments are.

Well, let's say you just spent the last $20 in your wallet, and this is all you had in your wallet. And someone else comes along and says, "How much money do you have in your wallet?" What else can you say, except nothing? ... with respect to the last twenty dollars you spent. This would be the "nothing" I'm referring to here.

 

[rjh01]

I would answer $0.00. But I am nitpicking.

A long argument over nothing.

 

[kmortis]

I would answer $0.00. But I am nitpicking.

A long argument over nothing.

Well, in light of Mercutio's participation, I'd say that it's "Much ado about nothing". But that woud just be silly

 

[TobiasTheViking]

There is a major problem with this question. Is there something called 'nothing?' Quantum mechanics say the answer is no. It comes under the uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with how good your measurement instruments are.

True, but besides the point.

In the context of our universe, there is no real nothing, as there will always be Quantum fluctuations. But in the context we are talking in now, i fail to see the relevance.

Sincerely
Tobias.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, in light of Mercutio's participation, I'd say that it's "Much ado about nothing". But that woud just be silly

Well, let's say you just spent the last $20 in your wallet, and this is all you had in your wallet. And someone else comes along and says, "How much money do you have in your wallet?" What else can you say, except nothing? ... with respect to the last twenty dollars you spent. This would be the "nothing" I'm referring to here.

Once again, you are thingking of "nothing" as empty space. That you put the empty space in a wallet this time instead of in a giant box, is irrelevant.

 

[.13.]

Yet all we have to do, is admit that nothing is a relative term.

How is non-existence relative? Can you barely exist? Hot and cold are relative terms but you can't relate existence and non-existence like that.

 

[Iacchus]

In the context of our universe, there is no real nothing, as there will always be Quantum fluctuations. But in the context we are talking in now, i fail to see the relevance.

Sincerely
Tobias.

And perhaps these "quantum fluctuations" occur as a result of the second dimensional "layer" that exists between the read/write mechanism of God's harddrive -- or, whatever mean He uses -- and the holographic field/dimension that we live in?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

And perhaps these "quantum fluctuations" occur as a result of the second dimensional "layer" that exists between the read/write mechanism of God's harddrive -- or, whatever mean He uses -- and the holographic field/dimension that we live in?

Sorry, the science doens't currently agree with that idea.

First of, science would have to have proof of God.

Then science would have to have proof that this is all a big simulation.

And what does holograph have to do with anything in this context?

 

[Taffer]

'Nothing' does not exist, Iacchus, it the absense of existance. 'Inside the universe, there is existance. 'Outside the universe, there is no existance. 'Inside' the universe, things exist in relation to other things. For example, a tree exists in relation to the 'not tree space' that surrounds it. It lets us distinguish between things. 'Outside' the universe, however, this is not the case. 'Outside' the universe, Iacchus, nothing exists. Existance does not exist. There is no existance. Hence there is no "in relation to", nor is there any "before" or any "size". There is nothing. No space. No time. No existance. Think of deep, deep, space. Totally black, with no light at all, no starts at all, and no particles. A pitch black, perfect vacuum. Here we would say nothing exists, right? Well outside the universe, there isn't even this. It is "blacker", "colder" and more "vacuumous" then anything you can imagine. You cannot fill it with anything, you cannot measure it, you cannot comprehend it. It is the absolute lack of anything, at all. God cannot exist here, as existance has no meaning. Time cannot exist here, as there is no "here" in which it can exist. Space cannot exist here because then it would be something, and it is nothing. It is the total lack of anything, at all. Ever.

 

[Mercutio]

'Nothing' does not exist, Iacchus, it the absense of existance. 'Inside the universe, there is existance. 'Outside the universe, there is no existance. 'Inside' the universe, things exist in relation to other things. For example, a tree exists in relation to the 'not tree space' that surrounds it. It lets us distinguish between things. 'Outside' the universe, however, this is not the case. 'Outside' the universe, Iacchus, nothing exists. Existance does not exist. There is no existance. Hence there is no "in relation to", nor is there any "before" or any "size". There is nothing. No space. No time. No existance. Think of deep, deep, space. Totally black, with no light at all, no starts at all, and no particles. A pitch black, perfect vacuum. Here we would say nothing exists, right? Well outside the universe, there isn't even this. It is "blacker", "colder" and more "vacuumous" then anything you can imagine. You cannot fill it with anything, you cannot measure it, you cannot comprehend it. It is the absolute lack of anything, at all. God cannot exist here, as existance has no meaning. Time cannot exist here, as there is no "here" in which it can exist. Space cannot exist here because then it would be something, and it is nothing. It is the total lack of anything, at all. Ever.

Actually, Taffer, I have to disagree with your version here. Iacchus already pictures "nothing" as you do...but that is a picture that is not of "nothing", but of empty space. The trick is that the very use of the term "outside the universe" is misleading. There is nothing outside. THere is no outside. Picturing it as empty space is giving it some characteristics. It has none.

 

[Iacchus]

but that is a picture that is not of "nothing", but of empty space.

Not so. That nothing is the two dimensional "layer" (which, in effect is nothing) that exists between our dimension of time space and the dimension that exists beyond it.

Boy, I sure am on a roll today!

 

[Taffer]

Actually, Taffer, I have to disagree with your version here. Iacchus already pictures "nothing" as you do...but that is a picture that is not of "nothing", but of empty space. The trick is that the very use of the term "outside the universe" is misleading. There is nothing outside. THere is no outside. Picturing it as empty space is giving it some characteristics. It has none.

I realise this. I used the term "outside" and "inside" within inverted commas for a reason. This is what I meant by "nothing doesn't exist".

 

[Mercutio]

Not so. That nothing is the two dimensional "layer" (which, in effect is nothing) that exists between our dimension of time space and the dimension that exists beyond it.

Two dimensions is not "nothing".

Boy, I sure am on a roll today!

Yeah, it goes much quicker when you are not constrained by truth.

 

[Mercutio]

I realise this. I used the term "outside" and "inside" within inverted commas for a reason. This is what I meant by "nothing doesn't exist".

Oh, I know you get it, and that you are technically right. But give some people a blade of grass and they construct a strawman...