What is "Nothing"

[ambush80]

I tossed and turned a bit last night trying to figure this out.

Where is it? Is there a place where nothing exists? If it's a place then it's not nothing. Can Nothing exist temporarily? Obviously it can't exist infinitely because here we are. I've heard it suggested that it can't ever exist.

 

[Madman]

Nothing = No Thing

 

[Madman]

Is there a place where nothing exists?

For some there may be that place, I do not see it as possible, in fact I don't see how any theist can believe there could ever be nothing.

 

[Madman]

Obviously it can't exist infinitely because here we are.

Simply because there is something now how does that make it obvious that "nothing can not exist infinitely"?

I thought we were here because of an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of possibilities. If that is true then on of the possibilities must be nothing.

 

[ambush80]

For some there may be that place, I do not see it as possible, in fact I don't see how any theist can believe there could ever be nothing.

I'm having a hard time as a secularist trying to find where Nothing can exist.

 

[ambush80]

Simply because there is something now how does that make it obvious that "nothing can not exist infinitely"?

It's not here. It must be somewhere else, but then it would be somewhere, a place, and a place is a thing, so it's not No-Thing. That place must be Nowhere as far as I can tell.

I thought we were here because of an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of possibilities. If that is true then on of the possibilities must be nothing.

The Nothing exists Nowhere. Multiverse theory kind of answers this. I don't understand it completely and it's not a very popular explanation. That doesn't make it wrong.

 

[ambush80]

So if there's always Something, I don't see why that can't be some sort of material potential. I definitely don't see the need for a "Conscious Prime Mover".

 

[Madman]

Multiverse theory kind of answers this. I don't understand it completely and it's not a very popular explanation. That doesn't make it wrong.

I believe the Multiverse theory is very possible, but you do understand that there are several Multiverse theories. I lean more to the possibility that there may be a difference in the "physics" of another universe, it seems more plausible than the theory that I may exist in another universe as a thin, wealthy, Adonis.

 

[Madman]

So if there's always Something, I don't see why that can't be some sort of material potential. I definitely don't see the need for a "Conscious Prime Mover".

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2016 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Look at it as an infinite number of train cars, they just sit on the track until coupled to an engine.

Material potential would be an effect; how about an immaterial potential?

 

[ambush80]

I believe the Multiverse theory is very possible, but you do understand that there are several Multiverse theories. I lean more to the possibility that there may be a difference in the "physics" of another universe, it seems more plausible than the theory that I may exist in another universe as a thin, wealthy, Adonis.

I'm familiar with the basic concept, I think. I don't completely understand "Inflation" or the "Bubbles". As I understand it, everything possible happens in some universe. But I ain't no Physics doctor.

 

[ambush80]

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2016 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Look at it as an infinite number of train cars, they just sit on the track until coupled to an engine.

Material potential would be an effect; how about an immaterial potential?

If there has always been Something, and that something could be energy/motion/ potential motion, why is a consciousness required?

 

[ambush80]

The material of the train cars is in motion. If there is material now, it must have been around forever in some form or else there would be Nothing. It seems that you want to say that the initial "Material Potential" must be a thought in God's mind. I just don't see the need for the Material Potential to have a consciousness. All I can tell for certain is that the idea of God exists because we are here to think it up. Some people think that "Math" exists without us, including (I guess) any weird math that might exist in a multiverse with different physics.

I came across this last night:

https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

 

[Madman]

If there has always been Something, and that something could be energy/motion/ potential motion, why is a consciousness required?

Where does the "Somethings" potential come from? Has it always existed as nothing more than potential? What caused it to release it's potential if it had no consciousness? Would that cause thee be the true cause? If so then you have moved up one notch.

 

[JustUs4All]

I will readily admit that the concept of "nothing", that is, the absence of something, is one of those things that is beyond my understanding similar to when did time start or what exists beyond the universe(s) that we know.

 

[Madman]

The material of the train cars is in motion. If there is material now, it must have been around forever in some form or else there would be Nothing.

Or there would be a material nothing, a spacial nothing, a nothing relating to time.

://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

Interesting article, was there ever No Thing? I believe not, however I do believe there was a time when no matter existed, no space existed, no time existed. If there ever was a time of "no thing" then it would be impossible to now be "some thing".

There is a problem with physicists trying to define something that cannot be measured. This is more philosophical.

 

[ambush80]

Where does the "Somethings" potential come from? Has it always existed as nothing more than potential? What caused it to release it's potential if it had no consciousness? Would that cause thee be the true cause? If so then you have moved up one notch.

A while ago I Googled

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+does+something+come+from+niothing

One of the things I read is that the material potential could be a "vibration". Have we agreed that there has never been Nothing? If so, we know that "Somethings" can change spontaneously, like degrading of elements. It's their "nature". They needn't have had anything influence them.

 

[ambush80]

I will readily admit that the concept of "nothing", that is, the absence of something, is one of those things that is beyond my understanding similar to when did time start or what exists beyond the universe(s) that we know.

#MeToo.

For some reason, the idea of "Something" always existing doesn't seem as hard for me to conceptualize. I don't see the need for that "something" to have a consciousness or a will.

 

[ambush80]

Or there would be a material nothing, a spacial nothing, a nothing relating to time.



Interesting article, was there ever No Thing? I believe not, however I do believe there was a time when no matter existed, no space existed, no time existed. If there ever was a time of "no thing" then it would be impossible to now be "some thing".

There is a problem with physicists trying to define something that cannot be measured. This is more philosophical.

I agree. We only differ in that you think that the "some thing" is a guy.

 

[Madman]

One of the things I read is that the material potential could be a "vibration".

This has it's own set of problems. Scientist always want to start with an effect that is "self actualizing". Kind of like the old joke where a scientist "creates" life by manipulating some dirt, and brags to God about it. God replies make you own dirt.

Have we agreed that there has never been Nothing?

yes

If so, we know that "Somethings" can change spontaneously, like degrading of elements. It's their "nature". They needn't have had anything influence them.

Here you are talking about a lose of something, a degradation, the second law of thermo, not an increase which would require an input of energy or information.

 

[Madman]

I agree. We only differ in that you think that the "some thing" is a guy.

that is a good place to start.

Could it be a "guy"?