/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5665288

Nothing isn't something.
Adding 'ness' to a word doesn't make it real entity.

>>5665288

nothingness doesn't exist

>>5665290
>>5665300

Right, ok.

Now, for the actual scientists in the room, how do you APPROACH the concept of nothingness?

>>5665317
you don't, there is nothing to approach.

>>5665317

nothingness as we can imagine it is a thing, an empty set. true nothingness is something we can't comprehend because by definition it doesn't exist. we can't infer it's existence or lack thereof

Am I on a religious message board? Very uninspiring and unimaginative people here right now. Seems like critical thinking just jumped out the window.

>>5665329

what is there to think critically about? why don't you add something to the conversation instead of shitposting

I'm no scientist, but I consider it, from a philosophical point of view, as the complete absence of presence.
Meaning it can never be observed.

From what little I know of quantum theory, I'd say it would be similar to waveform collapse (I think that's the right term )
because as soon as you observe nothingness, in any way, be it physically or mentally it ceases to be nothing and becomes, something

>>5665329
Suppose there were nothing. Then there would be no laws; for laws, after all, are something. If there were no laws, then everything would be permitted. If everything were permitted, then nothing would be forbidden. So if there were nothing, nothing would be forbidden. Thus nothing is self-forbidding. Therefore, there must be something. QED.

How do you confront religious-folk who often fall back on the "how did something come from nothing?" argument?

>>5665344

I don't. There was never a time when there was nothing. Case closed.

>>5665344
oh so, THAT'S what this is about, religion, *sigh*
well we don't say something came from nothing, we just don't know what it (i assume the universe in this case) came from,
just because we don't know, doesn't mean to say it came from nothing, people who fall back on this argument are just showcasing how conceited the human race is.
we don't know, therefore nothing is a stupid argument

No "religion vs science" threads.

>>5665344

you tell them that they don't know what nothing is, and there wasn't nothing before the universe started

What about a void? If you could not only remove all matter from a specific location but could also remove any corresponding field (gravity, electroweak, etc..) what would remain?

Does matter cause spacetime or is there spacetime with matter inside of it?

In other words, if there were no mass in this universe what would remain?

>>5665364
This is not a religion vs science thread. It's simply a thread which (ideally) would allow for various intelligent people to postulate on one of the greatest questions of all time. I hope that no common peruser of /sci/ is religious.

>>5665369

we don't know. einstein and riemann both believed that space only exists when it seperates two objects. according to this idea, if there was no mass, there would also be no space, but this view is conflicted with the current theory of quantum physics, so it's not clear who's right.

>>5665374
>lets make myself sound smart with big words

do you have anything to add to the conversation?

>>5665375
I'm glad you brought up Einstein. I'm sure that we're all familiar with his infamous "cosmological constant." Einstein, like many of the first posters in this thread threw the concept of nothingness out the window. When his calculations made it appear that the universe was finite he fiddled with the numbers and introduced his cosmological constant to make the universe eternal.

If the universe is eternal there is only something. If it is not, which we now know, then there is most definitely a "nothing" beyond our current something.

>>5665384
Do you?

>>5665391
well id rather not start a shitposting train but yeah,
I posted
>>5665339
and>>5665360
non of which got replies, im interested in what other people think about this though

>>5665390
>then there is most definitely a "nothing"

No Entity without Identity.
"Nothing" has no attributes.
It does not exist.

>>5665390

you're wrong

einstein thought the universe was eternal and non-changing, and his equations for GR assumed this. then hubble proved that the universe is not static (it's expanding) and einstein argued with him for a while before admitting it was his biggest mistake. then he added the cosmological constant to account for the expansion of the universe

>>5665399

both of those posts are misinformed

>>5665390

also, that nothingness you're talking about that exists outside of the universe is just that. something that's not part of the universe, it's still there though, so it's clearly not nothing

>>5665410
could you explain what's wrong with them? no point making mistakes if I don't learn from them

>>5665401
How can you explain a finite universe? How can you explain the abstract 0 which certainly figures into our equations? If there is something and that something is not eternal then it stands to reason that there must have been "nothing."

>>5665413
>imagining the universe as some 3d sphere
>thinking there is an "outside"

LMFAO

>>5665424
0/1000

>>5665407
Thanks, I got it backwards but the general idea was the same.

>>5665424
OHH GOD, PLEAZE STOP

>>5665423
he never claimed to think it was a 3d sphere

>>5665418
>>5665339

you say it's philosophical, and it is, but it doesn't have anything to do with absence and presence. there's a lot of philosophical views about it, and your post was ambiguous as to which one you were referring to, so it doesn't help get your point across. in the second part of the post you talk about collapsing a wave function, but a wave function is a superposition of all possible states, and a state of nothingness by definition has no properties, so you can't construct a linearly combination of those nonexistent properties

>>5665360
this thread was never about religion, but that is a common question that comes up, because religious people only have a pop-sci understanding of the current theories in physics and come to false conclusions based on shitty analogies that pop-sci gives them.

a lot of the stuff you said is right, but for the wrong reasons. please give better reasoning instead of general or otherwise ambiguous statements or else people on /sci will dismiss your statements as easily as you made them up

>>5665423
Andre Linde posited that a universe could be created in a laboratory and that it would be the same size (and indistinguishable) from a fundamental particle. The universe created in a lab would not expand and grow into our universe, its spacetime would simply curve in upon itself.

Therefore, there must be something outside.

>>5665433
0/100

>>5665436
thanks a lot

>>5665433
How old are you, 12? 14?

>>5665423

shitty shop of an already infamous gameshow blunder. why are you here exactly?

>>5665440
>>5665443
>>5665429
>>5665431

Done? Feel better? Perhaps you could add some insight to the conversation?

You're mocking me for putting forth question which are still unanswered today. How could I possibly be trolling? How could you possibly know the answers to the questions I am asking?

>>5665436
So if it's not about absence what would you define as "nothing"?

>>5665433
>one person thinks this might be plausible
>therefore it's true
No. I've read reports on "dark flow" which suggest that there is an enormous mass bordering our universe which is gravitationally affecting all of the matter in our universe, but it's little more than the pet theory of a few cosmologists at present.

>>5665424
If there is no nothing, then there is only something, hence the universe (or "reality" or however you want to describe i) is infinite.
If a state of nothing can exist, then the universe is certainly finite in time if not dimension. It's not bloody likely, though.
This guy said it pretty well: >>5665335

The very concept of nothingness negates itself.

>>5665492

but that doesn't mean it can't exist, it's just that our logic isn't set up to handle it's existence

>>5665494
It means that, for all intents and purposes, it can't exist. If it does, then our understanding of mathematics and the laws of physics are flawed beyond any hope of repair.

>>5665288
By definition a meaningless concept that I therefore don't have to waste any time thinking about.

>>5665504

it wouldn't be the first time that we had to completely reformulate our logic structure

>>5665504
well it's happened in the past hasn't it

>>5665494
>but that doesn't mean it can't exist

Nothing can mean no-thing, like no particular thing. Or it can mean no everything.

Nothing as the negation of all existent things can't exist by definition.

To ask if nothing can exist or has ever existed is to commit a category error. The two are mutually exclusive.
It's like asking who a bachelor is married to.
Or what color is pain.

Nothing cannot be experienced or observed.

Nothing doesn't exist in a sense.

Every object in existence is necessarily surrounded by (i.e. contrasted) by nothing because such a distinction is required for the objects to:

1. Have shape.
2. Move.

If the universe was just one big block of stuff then nothing could move. All objects necessarily are surrounded by nothing for that reason.

Nothing is that which has NO shape, in other words: void, background, space.

>>5665559
Of course nothing does EXIST because the word "exist" refers to things with location.

>>5665591
Motion of objects is impossible without space (i.e nothing) inbetween them.

Do thoughts exist?

The only area in the universe where there is nothingness, is between the nucleus and the electrons.

>>5665660
Not according to QFT.

>ITT, high schoolers debate what the word nothing means

>>5665344

It's a textbook strawman.

>>5665371
if there was something before the "universe started" then doesn't that mean that the universe was already there?

if we take the universe to mean; matter and space

>>5665766
whoever made that statement was trying too hard to make it difficult to understand

>>5665591
>>5665593

OP here, wonderful discussion.

Now, what is that space? Is that space nothing? If it is then a great many people in this thread are dead wrong. If it isn't, then you are wrong.

Which one is it?

>>5665923
>Is that space nothing

how could spacetime possible be nothing when nothingness can't exist

>>5665930
What is it, then?

>>5665940

it's almost certainly not nothing. It's a collection of dimensions

>>5665766
no it's not

>>5665947
Eternal dimensions?

Why not nothing? Nothing is the most basic form matter can take. It is the simplest "existence" possible. In fact, it goes against logic to assume that there is actually anything at all rather than nothing.

What about the total energy in our universe? Estimates put it at 0. All energy ends up negating itself. (dark matter)

>>5665974
>Why not nothing?

because it already exists

>Nothing is the most basic form matter can take

no it's not

>It is the simplest "existence" possible

it's the opposite of existence

>In fact, it goes against logic to assume that there is actually anything at all rather than nothing.

no it doesn't

>What about the total energy in our universe? Estimates put it at 0. All energy ends up negating itself. (dark matter)

that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

and dimensions are made out of thoughts

>>5665986
if the sum total of all energy (=matter) is 0. Then, my friend, there is nothing.

>>5665992

I think it just means that the sum is 0, not that there is nothing

>>5665997
You should know enough math to know that what you said still implies that there is nothing.

>>5666005

I know enough to distinguish between a sum of 0 and nothingness

>>5666012
are you retarded?

>>5666051

are you trolling?

>>5666067
It's very frustrating that when one is wrong and made aware that they are wrong the most common course of action is to accuse someone of "trolling." Why can't you just admit you're wrong; or at least refute the other person's argument?

>>5668566

if you said, i don't think you're right, instead of "are you retarded" i wouldn't be so hostile

>this thread
https://images.4channel.org/f/src/Akumusa_Extreme.swf

>>5668584
That wasn't me who said "are you retarded" but the knife cuts both ways. My scorn is directed at both of you.

Such a waste of time.

"Are you retarded?"
"Are you trolling?"

It really goes to show the level of intellectual maturity on this board.

>>5665456
Good question, how COULD they possibly know the answers? Even worse is why you expect them to give answers that nobody has

>>5668641
>>Even worse is why you expect them to give answers that nobody has

I don't expect them to give answers. I stated that they could not possibly know the answers therefore why do you think that I expected answers from them? Come on man, use logic.

I simply would like to see what people think. How they approach the topic.

If you describe a circle of no diameter, you are simultaneously describing a circle of infinity diameter. This can be generalized to any dimension. When you say the shape in between a circle of infinity diameter, and a circle of no diameter, you are talking about a shape that exists as a fact because it has observable properties, (meaning the statement "it exists" is true at any time, i.e. the statement 'the shape exists' is only true, and that can be only true in another place. Meaning 'nothing' and 'not nothing' share at least one edge, regardless if that edge is zero length, or not zero length away, it is always right next to whichever circle you are talking about.)
The most disturbing thing about 'nothing,' is that it has real properties, and those real properties can be used to describe anything, even 'nothing.'
In the beginning it wasn't against the rules to be true and false at the same time, and then for a third it was and a third it wasn't. The sentence "a = a" has four a in it.

>>5668805
Holy shit, how much weed did you smoke before you wrote that?

>>5668604

it doesn't show the intellectual maturity at all, because there's no way to know based on simple answers

Nothing is a subset of something.
There's plenty of nothing everywhere I look.

>>5668805
come again?

>>5668805

the curvature of a circle is 0
the curvature of a line is undefined

they're not the same thing

>>5668880
I'm not sure what definition of "curvature" you're using, but the usual definition is k=|dT/ds| where s is the parameter for your curve and T is the unit tangent vector. The curvature of a line is zero, and the curvature of a circle is 1/r, r being the circle's radius.

>>5668936

intrinsic curvature

a line is a diamter of a circle with infinite radius
a circle with radius 0 is a point

points and lines are not the same thing

>>5665288
Pro here.

An indefinite structure.

Miss applications of grammar applies as the fallout of words imply

1=0.00~0(-)1

>>5665288

The only real nothingness we can experience in my opinion is sleeping without dreaming. Just imagine this state without ever waking up, this is what nothingness is.

Philosophically speaking I think it's difficult to define nothingness, since it is characterized by the absence of something (namely everything), which would in turn require the existence of this something... It is kind of a Yin-Yang thing, one cannot exist without the other.

Scientifically speaking, in our universe, there is no such thing as "empty" space, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

>>5665288

I think the better question is to ask how you approach infinity.

For me, infinity is an absolute requirement for Existence to be possible. I cannot grasp this truly as our mind is programmed to constantly look for a beginning.

what if nothingness and everything is one in the same?

>>5669111

think about it for a second, you'll see why that's not the case

>>5668805
Wait what

>>5668848
>When I don't understand I like to belittle others so it looks like I'm not that stupid.
You can add nothing to the conversation without actually posting. Try it.

>>5668805

>>5669130
>implying in any way shape or form, 3 dimensional or otherwise that the sack of moronic shit that is >>5668805 added to this conversation in any way shape or form

>this entire thread

>>5669137
I ALSO posted the proof. Eat shit.

>>5665433
>>5665456
WHAT RETARD

POINT AT HIM

>>5665974
>Nothing is the most basic form matter

>>5669150
>I proved that lines and circles are the same thing
>I proved that nothing and something are the same thing

i understand that you can't really observe nothingness, and comprehend whole idea of nothing. but why ask the question?
you can't feel it, see it or hear it. its like looking for a needle in a haystack, yet the needle does not exist.
if the whole conversation is about you, i, us dying, and this is why you ask the question "what is nothingness?"
well think about it, from what I've heard the the senses, hearing, seeing, feeling. they stop working, you stop being able to observe.
sorry if i can't help, i am still new at this stuff and did the best i could with the knowledge i have. still have much to learn.

>>5668805
a circle of zero diameter is called a point
a circle of infinite diameter is called a line

"nothing is like, space, man"

jesus fucking christ get off the internet and read a book

i hate all of you why am i here

>>5669161
>I proved that lines and circles are the same thing.
What does a circle look like from the side?
So there are certain angles where they are the same thing.

>I proved that nothing and something are the same thing.
I didn't prove that at all. I just found a proof that you can describe nothing OR something with one shape, simultaneously, and that that particular shape cannot have the property 'doesn't exist,' because that would immediately confirm that an exact copy of that shape can be observed, and then I used the counter argument along with the assumption that the counter argument was true, to confirm that it can be observed. AND that shape happens to also look exactly like a circle, at certain angles.