On the existence of Nothing...

[Warspite]

OK, picking up on this Troll's quote. (See - Warning: extreme stupidity - fgalkin's topic)

Suppose that Nothing existed at All!

I mean Absolutely NOTHING – no universe, not one speck!

SO you’d have utter and total Nothingness …

Here’s my Question … How much of this Nothing, would you have?

Would there be a “Lot” of Nothing, or just a little bit? I mean … would Nothing be just a tiny little speck? … If Nothing were just a tiny little speck, doesn’t your mind naturally, kind of want to imagine that tiny speck in a larger volume of space? In other words, the instant you imagine that Nothing is very small, haven’t you also imagined that small Nothing inside a larger Nothing?

… So if there was Nothing … how much Nothing do you think there would be? Wouldn’t it, kind of have to be a LOT of Nothing? Maybe an Infinite amount of Nothing ... ?

Nothing is Nothing, the concept of space doesn't apply, zero times zero is still zero, so a "tiny speck" or a "infinite" amount is... illogical.
Also, Nothing divided by Nothing is inderteminate, so we don't know what happens when we fraction... Nothing.

So, your thoughts?

[Zoink]

I've posted this before, but re-post it with some added thoughts.

Zoink's thoughts...

On the Subject of the Universe, God, and the Nature of Time

Time and space are an integral part of the universe. There is no before/after the universe anymore than there is a 3m to the left of the universe.

*IF* an omnipotent being exists outside the universe, then he exist along with the universe. You can't apply "time" terms to describe the relationship between these two entities, unless of course God exists within the confines of the universe. God can't have existed alone, and then the universe is suddenly created. Cause/effect are meaningless, saying the universe created God is equally correct (equally as in they're both equally wrong).

The big bang is simply a location on the 4 dimensional object that is the universe, where the time/space dimensions form a point/curve (whichever).


On the Subject of the Existence without Creation

If the universe was not created, shouldn't nothing exist?

Nothing implies that: "Nothing". However, for there to be "nothing" requires a definition of "nothing": there is nothing, and something can't simply exist. That definition *is* something. The existence of nothing is self-contradictory. This is not surprising because, in reality we know *something* exists. We are simply reaffirming our observation that we exist, and that "nothing" is contradictory to reality.

[Ted]

OK, picking up on this Troll's quote. (See - Warning: extreme stupidity - fgalkin's topic)

Suppose that Nothing existed at All!

I mean Absolutely NOTHING – no universe, not one speck!

SO you’d have utter and total Nothingness …

Here’s my Question … How much of this Nothing, would you have?

Would there be a “Lot” of Nothing, or just a little bit? I mean … would Nothing be just a tiny little speck? … If Nothing were just a tiny little speck, doesn’t your mind naturally, kind of want to imagine that tiny speck in a larger volume of space? In other words, the instant you imagine that Nothing is very small, haven’t you also imagined that small Nothing inside a larger Nothing?

… So if there was Nothing … how much Nothing do you think there would be? Wouldn’t it, kind of have to be a LOT of Nothing? Maybe an Infinite amount of Nothing ... ?

Nothing is Nothing, the concept of space doesn't apply, zero times zero is still zero, so a "tiny speck" or a "infinite" amount is... illogical.
Also, Nothing divided by Nothing is inderteminate, so we don't know what happens when we fraction... Nothing.

So, your thoughts?

Now thats fucking retarded man, How much of nothing would be left if there was nothing? WTF??

[Zoink]

Nothing divided by Nothing is inderteminate

I would say "nothing divided by nothing" is a situation that can never arise:

If nothing is non-existence of the universe or anything... then nothing (having no universe) is an impossible situation. Its like trying to figure out what would happen if you went back in time to kill your grandfather while knowing that time travel is impossible. There is no paradox because you can't travel back in time. (disclaimer: time-travel impossibility used for example only)

ie. Arithmetic and "nothing" are mutually exclusive.

[Warspite]

OK, picking up on this Troll's quote. (See - Warning: extreme stupidity - fgalkin's topic)

Suppose that Nothing existed at All!

I mean Absolutely NOTHING – no universe, not one speck!

SO you’d have utter and total Nothingness …

Here’s my Question … How much of this Nothing, would you have?

Would there be a “Lot” of Nothing, or just a little bit? I mean … would Nothing be just a tiny little speck? … If Nothing were just a tiny little speck, doesn’t your mind naturally, kind of want to imagine that tiny speck in a larger volume of space? In other words, the instant you imagine that Nothing is very small, haven’t you also imagined that small Nothing inside a larger Nothing?

… So if there was Nothing … how much Nothing do you think there would be? Wouldn’t it, kind of have to be a LOT of Nothing? Maybe an Infinite amount of Nothing ... ?

Nothing is Nothing, the concept of space doesn't apply, zero times zero is still zero, so a "tiny speck" or a "infinite" amount is... illogical.
Also, Nothing divided by Nothing is inderteminate, so we don't know what happens when we fraction... Nothing.

So, your thoughts?

Now thats fucking retarded man, How much of nothing would be left if there was nothing? WTF??

Calm down! I'm thinking of Nothing as a mathematical entity like zero, that's all...

[data_link]

There's a reason why this guy spends so much time thinking about nothing: it perfectly reflects the contents of his brain.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

A speak of nothing is a oxymoron.

[Warspite]

OK, I concede, it's a flawed logical thought.

[Darth Wong]

Does this guy freak out when he sees the number zero?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

0

*watches Warspite explode*

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

This is the best explaination, that I have come across, of the concept of nothing.

That (nothing) is a stictly relative concept. It pertains to the absence of some kind of concrete. The concept "nothing" is not possible except in relation to "something." Therefore, to have the concept "nothing," you mentally specify- in parenthesis, in effect- the absence of a something, and you conceive of "nothing" only in relation to concretes which no longer exist or which do not exist at present.
You can say "I have nothing in my pocket." That dosen't mean you have an entity called "nothing" in your pocket. You do not have any of the objects that could concievably be there, such as handkerchiefs, money, gloves, or whatever. "Nothing" is a strictly a concept relative to some existant concretes whose absence you denote in this form.
It is very important to grasp that "nothing" cannot be a primary concept. You cannot start with it in the absence of, or prior to, the existence of some object....... There is no concept as "nothing" except as a relationational concept denoting the absence of some things.

Quote taken from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand (page 149. Definatly a good read for anyone who is interested in getting a rational explaination for concept formation in the human mind.

[Darth Wong]

Too long-winded. It's basically the same as saying that cold is merely the absence of heat, and does not "exist" in any sense except to denote absence.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Not at all , the absence of heat isnt cold, its the lack of any perception of temperature by your brian. To be accurate cold is a subjective relative comparison to heat. Phsiologically, cold is a perception of temperature by the brain after energy is transfered to a nerve cell. A low amount of energy causes us to feel "cold" within a certain range and a higher energy amount causes us to feel heat in a certain range, between the two ranges we feel neither cold nor heat, this is room temperature, and it is what is referred to by the absence of heat or the absence of cold. That is why your analogy is wrong, Hot, cold, and room temperature are all different measurements on a temperature scale, they exist and they exist independently of one another and because of this they cannot be used as an analogy to "nothing" because they are something.
It is entirely possible however, that you are not refering to the human perception of heat but rather to heat and cold independent of human perception (from the skin), meaning that heat is the presence of EM radiation of a certain frequency range in a given space and that cold is the lack of EM radiation of this same frequency range in a given space. While this may be true, you are decieving yourself if you think you are in anyway way saying something different from the original defination. Your post

It's basically the same as saying that cold is merely the absence of heat, and does not "exist" in any sense except to denote absence.

is merely the defination of nothing using a specific concrete, heat, and a lingusitic substitution for nothing, cold, in relation to that concrete. Meaning that your post is just one specific context in which the defination of nothing can be taken. From your post we can easily extract the essence of what you were saying, and this "essence" is basically a compact form of what I orignally quoted from Rand. So if someone where to write a compact defination for nothing it would be:

Basically nothing is the absencse of something, it does not "exist" in any sense except to denote absence.

In conclusion we can say that your example was accurate (assuming you meant the second example of heat and cold ), but too specific. It is certainly worse then the original explanation for this reason, but also because one can become confused by what you mean when you say heat and cold. Finally, I said the original Rand quotation was a good explaination, not that it was a compact defination. A short defination isn't necessarily as good "long-winded" explaination at helping someone understand a concept. Rand explaination is good for explaining nothing to people who are used to thinking of nothing as a given quantiy, such as the person who was quoted at the start of this thread . i.e. having a "little speck" of nothing.

Now then...... ADMIT IM RIGHT WONG!!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Not at all , the absence of heat isnt cold, its the lack of any perception of temperature by your brian. To be accurate cold is a subjective relative comparison to heat. Phsiologically, cold is a perception of temperature by the brain after energy is transfered to a nerve cell. A low amount of energy causes us to feel "cold" within a certain range and a higher energy amount causes us to feel heat in a certain range, between the two ranges we feel neither cold nor heat, this is room temperature, and it is what is referred to by the absence of heat or the absence of cold. That is why your analogy is wrong, Hot, cold, and room temperature are all different measurements on a temperature scale, they exist and they exist independently of one another and because of this they cannot be used as an analogy to "nothing" because they are something.
It is entirely possible however, that you are not refering to the human perception of heat but rather to heat and cold independent of human perception (from the skin), meaning that heat is the presence of EM radiation of a certain frequency range in a given space and that cold is the lack of EM radiation of this same frequency range in a given space. While this may be true, you are decieving yourself if you think you are in anyway way saying something different from the original defination. Your post

It's basically the same as saying that cold is merely the absence of heat, and does not "exist" in any sense except to denote absence.

is merely the defination of nothing using a specific concrete, heat, and a lingusitic substitution for nothing, cold, in relation to that concrete. Meaning that your post is just one specific context in which the defination of nothing can be taken. From your post we can easily extract the essence of what you were saying, and this "essence" is basically a compact form of what I orignally quoted from Rand. So if someone where to write a compact defination for nothing it would be:

Basically nothing is the absencse of something, it does not "exist" in any sense except to denote absence.

In conclusion we can say that your example was accurate (assuming you meant the second example of heat and cold ), but too specific. It is certainly worse then the original explanation for this reason, but also because one can become confused by what you mean when you say heat and cold. Finally, I said the original Rand quotation was a good explaination, not that it was a compact defination. A short defination isn't necessarily as good "long-winded" explaination at helping someone understand a concept. Rand explaination is good for explaining nothing to people who are used to thinking of nothing as a given quantiy, such as the person who was quoted at the start of this thread . i.e. having a "little speck" of nothing.

Now then...... ADMIT IM RIGHT WONG!!

I see holes in that big enough to drive an Eclipse Super Star Destroyer through, but I'm too lazy to attack right now... LOL

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Oh btw BlkbrryTheGreat looka this...
0


*watches BlkbrryTheGreat fuse all his synapses and turn into a blubbering braindead vegetable...*
PH34R T3H 0!

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Einhander, either state what you holes you see, or shut up. I have no tolerance for people who claim they see mistakes in a work but refuse to point them out because they are "lazy, tired, can't be bothered, etc". To me this sort of critisim, without any support to back up the criticism, seems to be nothing more then a two bit loser's attempt to elevate himselves above a given person without having to do the work to prove it. Either put up or be permenantly labeled a dickless asshole.