Wouldn’t that be a true expression about most things we talk about here?

Is there any real meaning or purpose to anything we are discussing, or experiencing; or is it all for nothing?

These are something’s I think about frequently, so I’ve been meaning to post a thread about it to aid in my musings. So I’m hoping the many intelligent and intellectual individuals of this community can contribute your insights and opinions towards the subject, for the purpose of good fun and hopefully to stimulate some intellectual growth.

My history of the subject of nothing started at a young age for me, probably due to my continuous contemplation and awe of the universe we seem to exist in and the beauty of its nature it presents.
Growing up I always loved watching programs on television about the universe and the solar system, and all the theories of its creation. Then around my middle teens I was introduced to Christianity and the idea of an ever-present God creating the universe. Although I adopted Christian beliefs for a short time in my life, I never really accepted creationism, I just chose to believe the Big Bang Theory was the way God actually created the universe and creationism was just a misinterpretation of this from a time when science wasn't practical and developed enough for people to understand such things. Maybe that sounds silly to some but hey, it seemed rational to me, at that time at least. Still after thinking deeply about these theories of existence, I was always left with what seemed to be such a difficult question.

Why does anything exist at all?

Why is there this great vast place that we call the universe and all these things that fill it?

Why isn’t there just nothing?

I questioned, if the universe just popped into existence it seems it must have came from something, yet trying to hold the belief that there was some ever-present being that created just wasn’t satisfying. It raised the question where did God come? Or who or what created God? How can something be ever-present? (Such difficult concept to understand with our perception of linear time)

I hadn’t seriously thought about these things for awhile until, I was reading the thread about a Stephen Hawking article. When I read this quote by Gibran2, it stirred up some thoughts in me.



It has made me think that nothing is just a concept that exist in thought, and couldn’t really possibly exist. I mean to say, pure nothing exists is like a paradox, right?

So I choose not to believe in nothing, and that’s why I like to hold agnosticism as my primary philosophy in life. Although I can’t hold out the possibility of absolutely nothing, ever being possible in the past or future of the universe (Or beyond), just because it’s a concept I can’t seem to conceive.

After thinking for a long time this is the phrase that came to my mind one day and it seems to satisfy my curiosity somewhat, whether it’s true or not.

Here it is:

Anything and/or everything must exist because “nothing” cannot exist.

That just seems to make sense to me, at least to the small degree to understand that everything seems to be in existence, so it must be. I’m not really gonna attempt a “why” or “how” it must be, it just seems that’s the way it is and I may never know those answers.

Also it seems to express the same if I change it to this:

“Nothing” cannot exist because anything and/or everything, does exist.

Again, feel free to state your opinions, offer insights, or criticize the logic I’m using here but please keep it in good taste. Also I’d like to keep it specifically to the science or philosophy of “Nothing”, and existence, or the absence of. I often come to the Nexus because I learn new things.

Thanks all!

~DMT Psychonaut

I like where you are going with this; however, you need to define a few terms:





What do you mean, specifically, by "exist"? I ask because it seems axiomatic that nothing cannot exist if existence be a property of some THING (and you have been careful in your definition of NOTHING that it contain no properties whatsoever).

What is EVERYTHING? Clearly not what would ordinarily fit in the set, for that would INCLUDE "nothing". If you define EVERYTHING as all things excepting NOTHING, and define EVERYTHING as all that exists, then the statement above is a tautology.

You're up to bat.

JBArk

Well I believe when that thought came to mind, I had the impression it was a tautology.

So I suppose I’d have to say that I’m defining everything as all that exist (excluding nothing) and more importantly nothing as non-existent.

I would try to define everything as:

The entirety of all states of being

And try to define exist as:

Present, in and possibly outside of the natural universe, such as objects, entities, and thoughts; including the universe itself.

However, if I include thoughts, as a state of being that is present in existence, does that then include nothing into the definition of existence, as the concept of nothing exist as a thought?

Maybe I’m just getting lost in the semantics, but when we have to question the definition of these terms in order to continue this discussion; I have to ask, what would such things be if we couldn’t define them? How would we communicate them?

Also just out of curiosity I wonder how things might be different if we weren’t limited to semantics of making distinctions through words and articulations but instead could communicate these topics in expressions of pure thought (Telepathy)?
Would distinctions be necessary?

I’m not sure if I’m making sense but trying to keep this fresh.

Swing! Strike One!

What is energy that is not differentiated into form?
Nothing.

Not true. Energy is something.

You are asserting that energy may be nothing? It is certainly not a "thing", but I would certainly consider it in the set of EVERYTHING. Why would it be NOTHING if it were not "differentiated into form"? Perhaps we can use sunlight as an example?

JABrk

I would say energy is a state of being, which would fall in the Set of Everything.

Besides isn't matter just energy condensed into a slow vibration?

Energy>Matter||Object=Exist

So wouldn't energy be another form of matter, and any form of matter can be classified as an object, which exist. Right?

Yes – Energy and matter are equivalent: E = mc^2

So if we say that energy is nothing, then matter is also nothing.

Who said energy was nothing?
That is silly!

Undifferentiated energy though... It has no mass, no force, no space and no dimensionality.
Undifferented energy is the same as undifferentiated matter and undifferentiated timespace.

But when you think about it, undifferentiated energy is no energy, nor is is mass, nor is it space-time, in terms of those things it does not exist, but all existence stems from it and it allows energy, mass and space time to manifest as properties of the same phenomena.

That is why the force equals mass relative to timespace equation exists.
It hinges upon nothing as a specific value.

Sort of like how the maximum velocity is actually zero, that to move from point a to b instantly is done at velocity zero.

But we can't use zero as a value so we need a relative constant, ergo the speed of light is employed.


Sunlight is differentiated, it cannot be an example of a lack of differentiation.

First, nothing and something are not mutually exclusive, the idea that nothing is not something is very strange, even silly.

As for the rest, the question 'why' is indicative of intent, it is abstract and not really very scientific.

I believe that nothing does indeed exist and that is the reason that everything does.

Since the energy mass space-time equation is mathematic, let's consider nothing mathematically, what is the mathematic expression of nothing that is not something?

Give the value for nothing that is not something.
Define it using mathematic terms.

You should also define something mathematically, what is the value for something?
What is the value for everything?

Something doesn't mean anything without differentiation, something is literally nothing without being defined

First, if not question,"why" because it is indicative of intent, then let's substitute it for "how".

Does that fit better? lulz

But why can't nothing and something be mutually exlusive? How is the possibilty of nothing not being, strange or silly?

If pure nothing is something, I'd say it exist in the form of an idea or thought at least, if nothing else.

And on thoughts.... Have you ever tried thinking nothing, tried to not think about a thing or anything? Seriously have you tried to just sit there and try to eradicate all noise and thoughts from your mind, I don't think it's possible, at least while being conscious, and by conscious I mean having neural activity, because dreaming or subconscious thoughts would count, even if we weren't aware of those thoughts until after becoming lucid.

^^^ Ha! That's nothing.

But if there is nothing for you to react to, then...



JBArk

Mathematically, isn't zero nothing? What about the empty set?

Nothing is in fact an abstraction created by humans to ponder the “absence of all there is”. Nothingness as a concept is as difficult to comprehend as the concept of infinity. We can talk about it, use symbols to define and describe it, give “it” a name – label it, but this is all an elaborate game: the “it” we describe does not and cannot exist. For “nothing” to exist would require it to be “something” – a clear contradiction.

To even talk about nothing is to enter into a contradiction.

OK - I'll be more precise:

Ha! That's a graphical representation of the abstract concept we call "nothing".

It's my personal belief that most of what we consider existence is the opposite duality of chaos. That is to say, reality as we see and interact with is the other side of the coin that is absolute chaos. Everything we see from the big bang to evolution to social interaction is a paradigm of organization. Chaos is the opposite of this: lack of any coherent organization. "Nothing" in the terms that you put it is just another form of organization, the opposite of the organization that is "everything." If you consider that everything from the shape of galaxies to the shape of neurons on your brain follow fractal organization (even if it is sometimes stochastic) you begin to realize that all we see an interact with follows some sort of pattern system. For me, because I'm a fan of eastern philosophy, this makes perfect sense because something must play against the notion of chaos (this is the ying and the yang).

What becomes interesting is where we see the lines of pattern and chaos begin to blur, in areas such as creativity, mutation and entropy.



Ha, well played.

So can some-thing which is no-thing be abstractly represented graphically? And is nothing a no-thing and are concepts some-things or nothings? And even graphically, can we truly react to NOTHING?

Jlark