Is there such a thing as nothing?

[Vikrant]

I have often heard people say that the universe came from nothing. If that is the case then what is nothing? I personally cannot seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of nothing. To me the concept of nothing does not make any sense at all. Something (space, time, matter, etc) on the other hand is much more easier to get my head wrapped around.

Can someone define nothing?

Let us give it a shot.

 

[Pogo]

nothing

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No in fact there isn't. And as an episode of "Through the Wormhole" explained, if there were such a thing as a perfect absolute nothing, the universe would fall apart. Seems to have something to do with how 'something' even in a seemingly void region of space keeps the fabric of space-time from collapsing in on itself. Think of it like a solid cube of matter. It can support x amount of weight on top of it. But a hollow cube can't support as much. Without that 'something' in space 'supporting' the 'weight' of space-time around it, space would collapse in on itself in a cascade type reaction.

 

[Youch]

I have often heard people say that the universe came from nothing. If that is the case then what is nothing? I personally cannot seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of nothing. To me the concept of nothing does not make any sense at all. Something (space, time, matter, etc) on the other hand is much more easier to get my head wrapped around.

Can someone define nothing?

Let us give it a shot.

Some describe anti-matter as nothing. But then again, it is something.

The absence of light is dark. But then again, that is something.

I guess you have to decide the parameters for nothing. Even a homeless man with no possessions could have dignity, which is something.

 

[Pogo]

I have often heard people say that the universe came from nothing. If that is the case then what is nothing? I personally cannot seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of nothing. To me the concept of nothing does not make any sense at all. Something (space, time, matter, etc) on the other hand is much more easier to get my head wrapped around.

Can someone define nothing?

Let us give it a shot.

Some describe anti-matter as nothing. But then again, it is something.

The absence of light is dark. But then again, that is something.

I guess you have to decide the parameters for nothing. Even a homeless man with no possessions could have dignity, which is something.

Yes and no. Anti-matter is something, yes. But the absence of something cannot also be something. It may (or may not) be something else, but being a shadow does not tell us what it is, only what it is not.

One remembers this from one's childhood:
"That that is, is; that that is not, is not" and the corollary: "That that is is is that that that that is not is not".


Ponder ye this:
In baseball (where a lack of runs scored is commonly called "nothing") each team takes turns trying to score before it commits three outs, with the visitor team getting first chance. Hypothetical game: the visiting team takes its turn in its half of the first inning and scores two runs before committing three outs. Now it's time for the home team to take its turn.

At this moment in time, the score is not "two to nothing" or two to zero; the score is "visitors two, home team coming to bat", i.e. the score is incomplete since the home team has not had a chance to score, therefore their score cannot be called "zero" or "nothing". Rather, their score does not yet exist. Which is distinct from "nothing".

 

[Vikrant]

No in fact there isn't. And as an episode of "Through the Wormhole" explained, if there were such a thing as a perfect absolute nothing, the universe would fall apart. Seems to have something to do with how 'something' even in a seemingly void region of space keeps the fabric of space-time from collapsing in on itself. Think of it like a solid cube of matter. It can support x amount of weight on top of it. But a hollow cube can't support as much. Without that 'something' in space 'supporting' the 'weight' of space-time around it, space would collapse in on itself in a cascade type reaction.

For the most part we are in an agreement. There is no such thing as nothing. I would add this though that space is not nothing. It is still something.

 

[Pogo]

No in fact there isn't. And as an episode of "Through the Wormhole" explained, if there were such a thing as a perfect absolute nothing, the universe would fall apart. Seems to have something to do with how 'something' even in a seemingly void region of space keeps the fabric of space-time from collapsing in on itself. Think of it like a solid cube of matter. It can support x amount of weight on top of it. But a hollow cube can't support as much. Without that 'something' in space 'supporting' the 'weight' of space-time around it, space would collapse in on itself in a cascade type reaction.

For the most part we are in an agreement. There is no such thing as nothing. I would add this though that space is not nothing. It is still something.

Space is something, but the phrase "no such thing" describes a state of nothingness. So that's a paradox. Or at least an oxymoron.

To touch on the OP title directly, there is no such "thing" as nothing, since by definition nothing is 'no thing'. But that doesn't mean ''nothing" doesn't exist --- as the essence of nonexistence.

 

[Vikrant]

Yes and no. Anti-matter is something, yes. But the absence of something cannot also be something. It may (or may not) be something else, but being a shadow does not tell us what it is, only what it is not.

One remembers this from one's childhood:
"That that is, is; that that is not, is not" and the corollary: "That that is is is that that that that is not is not".


Ponder ye this:
In baseball (where a lack of runs scored is commonly called "nothing") each team takes turns trying to score before it commits three outs, with the visitor team getting first chance. Hypothetical game: the visiting team takes its turn in its half of the first inning and scores two runs before committing three outs. Now it's time for the home team to take its turn.

At this moment in time, the score is not "two to nothing" or two to zero; the score is "visitors two, home team coming to bat", i.e. the score is incomplete since the home team has not had a chance to score, therefore their score cannot be called "zero" or "nothing". Rather, their score does not yet exist. Which is distinct from "nothing".

Zero is not nothing. Zero is something very substantial. For example, we know for fact that -1000000 is something. Zero is greater than -1000000. So that makes zero a lot more something than -1000000.

 

[Moonglow]

Nothing is cheaper than something.

 

[Pogo]

Yes and no. Anti-matter is something, yes. But the absence of something cannot also be something. It may (or may not) be something else, but being a shadow does not tell us what it is, only what it is not.

One remembers this from one's childhood:
"That that is, is; that that is not, is not" and the corollary: "That that is is is that that that that is not is not".


Ponder ye this:
In baseball (where a lack of runs scored is commonly called "nothing") each team takes turns trying to score before it commits three outs, with the visitor team getting first chance. Hypothetical game: the visiting team takes its turn in its half of the first inning and scores two runs before committing three outs. Now it's time for the home team to take its turn.

At this moment in time, the score is not "two to nothing" or two to zero; the score is "visitors two, home team coming to bat", i.e. the score is incomplete since the home team has not had a chance to score, therefore their score cannot be called "zero" or "nothing". Rather, their score does not yet exist. Which is distinct from "nothing".

Zero is not nothing. Zero is something very substantial. For example, we know for fact that -1000000 is something. Zero is greater than -1000000. So that makes zero a lot more something than -1000000.

Agreed - zero is not nothing. That distinction is the whole point of the baseball analogy.

To finish the thought, once that home team has had its chance (once) and fails to score, their score is then "zero", commonly but inaccurately called "nothing". But before they had that chance, it was neither. Because it did not exist. Which technically could be called "nothing".

Baseball is cerebral but it doesn't go quite that deep.

 

[Vikrant]

Some describe anti-matter as nothing. But then again, it is something.

The absence of light is dark. But then again, that is something.

I guess you have to decide the parameters for nothing. Even a homeless man with no possessions could have dignity, which is something.

Exactly. That is the objective of the thread to see if we can define nothing where it makes sense. You gotta give it to us humans for coming up with words that mean nothing. Damn there is that nothing again.

 

[Vikrant]

Agreed - zero is not nothing. That distinction is the whole point of the baseball analogy.

To finish the thought, once that home team has had its chance (once) and fails to score, their score is then "zero", commonly but inaccurately called "nothing". But before they had that chance, it was neither. Because it did not exist. Which technically could be called "nothing".

Baseball is cerebral but it doesn't go quite that deep.

I think the fault was mine. I was drinking coffee and reading your post at the same time.

 

[Pogo]

Agreed - zero is not nothing. That distinction is the whole point of the baseball analogy.

To finish the thought, once that home team has had its chance (once) and fails to score, their score is then "zero", commonly but inaccurately called "nothing". But before they had that chance, it was neither. Because it did not exist. Which technically could be called "nothing".

Baseball is cerebral but it doesn't go quite that deep.

I think the fault was mine. I was drinking coffee and reading your post at the same time.

.
Nothing wrong with that!

 

[hadit]

I don't think we are wired to truly grasp the concept of absolute nothing, any more than we can grasp the concept of eternity.

 

[Vikrant]

Agreed - zero is not nothing. That distinction is the whole point of the baseball analogy.

To finish the thought, once that home team has had its chance (once) and fails to score, their score is then "zero", commonly but inaccurately called "nothing". But before they had that chance, it was neither. Because it did not exist. Which technically could be called "nothing".

Baseball is cerebral but it doesn't go quite that deep.

Actually, the baseball analogy was good. So let us go back to the point where the team has not scored yet because it did not have a chance to bat yet. So we are referring to a possibility of a future event (home team batting for the first time) which may or may not happen. Is this possibility of future event something or nothing?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Some describe anti-matter as nothing. But then again, it is something.

The absence of light is dark. But then again, that is something.

I guess you have to decide the parameters for nothing. Even a homeless man with no possessions could have dignity, which is something.

Exactly. That is the objective of the thread to see if we can define nothing where it makes sense. You gotta give it to us humans for coming up with words that mean nothing. Damn there is that nothing again.

When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose!

 

[Vikrant]

Space is something, but the phrase "no such thing" describes a state of nothingness. So that's a paradox. Or at least an oxymoron.

To touch on the OP title directly, there is no such "thing" as nothing, since by definition nothing is 'no thing'. But that doesn't mean ''nothing" doesn't exist --- as the essence of nonexistence.

I am not necessarily saying that nothing does not exist. Right there was a big mess. I just cannot imagine what that nothing is. Even physicists struggle with the notion of nothing. I am just a mere mortal.

Let us assume there is no time, there is no matter, there is no space. But we will always have mathematical laws, possibilities of future events such as home team batting. That is something. May be us humans made a mistake when we invented the word called 'nothing'?

 

[Vikrant]

I don't think we are wired to truly grasp the concept of absolute nothing, any more than we can grasp the concept of eternity.

Infinity is pretty graspable. There have been mathematicians who have tackled the subject intensively. However, you will find that no worthy physicist acknowledges the idea of nothing. This leads us to believe that something was always there and something will always be there.

 

[Pogo]

Agreed - zero is not nothing. That distinction is the whole point of the baseball analogy.

To finish the thought, once that home team has had its chance (once) and fails to score, their score is then "zero", commonly but inaccurately called "nothing". But before they had that chance, it was neither. Because it did not exist. Which technically could be called "nothing".

Baseball is cerebral but it doesn't go quite that deep.

Actually, the baseball analogy was good. So let us go back to the point where the team has not scored yet because it did not have a chance to bat yet. So we are referring to a possibility of a future event (home team batting for the first time) which may or may not happen. Is this possibility of future event something or nothing?

I would have to say it's nothing, as it does not yet exist and depending on the weather, may in fact never happen. If it in fact does not happen, was it ever something?



To the question of events that may or may not happen I am irresistibly tempted to recall perhaps the most profound wisdom of the Game as espoused by that glorious philosopher and pitcher Joachin Andujar:

Baseball can be summed up in one word, and that one word is -- "you never know".

 

[Pogo]

Space is something, but the phrase "no such thing" describes a state of nothingness. So that's a paradox. Or at least an oxymoron.

To touch on the OP title directly, there is no such "thing" as nothing, since by definition nothing is 'no thing'. But that doesn't mean ''nothing" doesn't exist --- as the essence of nonexistence.

I am not necessarily saying that nothing does not exist. Right there was a big mess. I just cannot imagine what that nothing is. Even physicists struggle with the notion of nothing. I am just a mere mortal.

Let us assume there is no time, there is no matter, there is no space. But we will always have mathematical laws, possibilities of future events such as home team batting. That is something. May be us humans made a mistake when we invented the word called 'nothing'?

Mistake, yes. Because it's a concept we cannot accurately verbalize in a word.

I would submit, as in the last post, that this future event that may or may not happen is not something; only the thought that it may come to pass is something. That is if you consider actions (i.e. thought) to be "things". And now it's necessary to define that part.