That's what meditation is all about: emptying the mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah.. but empty is not nothing.... nothing is not empty...

 

the only way to define nothing is the lackthereof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you dribbling about?

Something that's been bugging me the last few days:

 

What is nothing? Does it even exist?

 

Something that exists is, per definition, something, right? So claiming that nothing exists would be a contradiction. But then again, discussing the concept of nothing makes it something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to discuss it. Therefore, nothing would exist in our minds only.

 

 

From a philosophical point of view, the concept of "nothing" can have many interpretations. In fact, one can't even say that nothing does or does not exist. One cannot sense, see, feel, or think nothing. There is no contact with nothing. Nothing is where everything isn't. Visualizing "nothing" would make "something". It could be seen as a physical void or as just a word which only has meaning when used to describe a relationship between different "somethings". A single "correct" definition of nothing could be considered impossible, since "right" and "wrong" do not fit within the confines of nothing.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

 

What I'm trying to get to is: IF nothing does not and can not exist, has there always been something? If so, there would never have been a beginning of time. An absolute beginning of everything is what comes right after nothing. If there has never been nothing, there can be no beginning.

 

It's so hard trying to rationalize something that falls beyond the realm of reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Philosophically speaking nothing is a concept that cannot be grasped by mortal minds because it is a concept so alien as to become irrelevent. But one must wonder what an atheist believes the afterlife, or the lack of one thereof is like. But speaking in physical terms the only place where nothing exists is in the void or the place that is not a place between parallel universes. The void cannot be imagined by any human or other rational mind because it is a place where chaos rules and anarchy reigns. When people think of nothing they think of floating in an abyss where everthing is black and silent but they give too much substence to the void by imagining even thus. As far as empty space being nothing as stated previously stated in certain responses " , the thought of nothing being so substantial as matterless space is ridiculous because space is somthing that can even be measured so OBVIOUSLY is SOMETHING

Edited August 13, 200619 yr by True_Magus

That's what meditation is all about: emptying the mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some minds are more empty then others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But are their minds half-empty or half-full?

Being half full requires something to be 100% complete, where half empty is just emptiness.

Yay, I love talking about nothing!

 

Clicky! Wikki

A vacuum is a volume of space that is substansively empty of matter, so that gaseous pressure is much less than standard atmospheric pressure. The root of the word vacuum is the Latin adjective vacuus which means "empty," but space can never be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum, known as "free space", with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept with no physical reality, not least because quantum theory predicts that no volume of space is perfectly empty in this way. Physicists often use the term "vacuum" slightly differently. They discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" in this context, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to the imperfect vacua realized in practice.

 

The quality of a vacuum is measured by how closely it approaches a perfect vacuum. The residual gas pressure is the primary indicator of quality, and it is most commonly measured in units of torr, even in metric contexts. Lower pressures indicate higher quality, although other variables must also be taken into account. Quantum mechanics sets limits on the best possible quality of vacuum. Outer space is a natural high quality vacuum, mostly of much higher quality than what can be created artificially with current technology. Low quality artificial vacuums have been used for suction for millenia.

 

I believe in the 80's their was a phenomenon called genesis somethign or other where particles would pop out of nowhere, out of vacuums, then later they found out that even vacuums have particles and these particles will clump and thus will become more visible!

 

Nothing is subjective on a viewpoint i suppose. Metaphysical, linquistically it can exist . as for in the natural realm im a skeptic.

if we use that definition I would say nothingness doesn't exist.. however paradoxal that sentence may be! but that's just semantics..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By definition, nothing being nothing, it exists and does not at the same time. The idea that nothing does not exist AT ALL is retarded , because that means that all things of the universe are infinite, again... retarded , the universe though is, while constantly growing, not entirely infinite, and given one of the many quantum theories, all of which you seem unfamiliar with, and if you are I'm talking about the one about parallel universes, yes there is one like that , then are you saying that all of these universes are joined touching with no differenciation? That would be ONE universe , not parallels. Please have a good day...(douche)

Edited August 13, 200619 yr by True_Magus

If nothing was something then something is nothing therefore nothing is something because something is nothing since nothing is something and something is nothing.

I exist therefore I am.

I exist therefore I am.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you "think" you exist again?

Being half full requires something to be 100% complete, where half empty is just emptiness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Errr...wouldn't that be 50% complete?

Hmmm, can we claim that the universe is not infinite?

 

It's clearly not infinitely old (too many paradoxes with that one), but who's to say it's not infinite in matter?

 

What is infinity when discussing the Universe. Is our concept of infinity capped by the expansion of spacetime?

 

 

It's interesting because no matter how small of a segment we look at in the sky, we always find clusters of galaxies. And when we get a cluster of galaxies, if we look between those clusters, we see more clusters of galaxies, and so on.

 

Why couldn't the universe be infinite?

IF nothing does not and can not exist, has there always been something? If so, there would never have been a beginning of time.

You have a fallacy there, since you are assuming that something can't exist outside of time.

An absolute beginning of everything is what comes right after nothing.

Says who?

If there has never been nothing, there can be no beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prove your definition of the beginning of everything. How do you know there was a beginning to everything? What if there was something outside of the time-realm, that didn't need a beginning, since it has always existed?

 

Something can exist outside of time. GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAH!!!

 

:BLANK'S JESUS-PLUG EMOTICON:

Edited August 13, 200619 yr by Blank

As an aside, the Big Bang Theory was initially rejected because it seemed to hinge too much on divine intervention.

What are you trying to do, help me turn this into a Jesus-thread?

 

I certainly don't mind

Guys listen, NOTHING = SOMETHING

NoOoOo, because nothing is the absence of something.

ANd that absence consitutes as somthing ^^

What are you trying to do, help me turn this into a Jesus-thread?

 

I certainly don't mind

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You probably wouldn't like the take I'd bring on that perspective. Though I doubt it'd be something you hadn't heard before.

OH oh, tell me tell me! I haven't had a Jesus thread for a few months now.

It goes like, jesus is ur mom.

OH oh, tell me tell me! I haven't had a Jesus thread for a few months now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope, sorry.

Dangit. Well, I guess this is my excuse to go to sleep. Night guys.

Edited August 13, 200619 yr by Blank

if we use that definition I would say nothingness doesn't exist.. however paradoxal that sentence may be! but that's just semantics..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By definition, nothing being nothing, it exists and does not at the same time. The idea that nothing does not exist AT ALL is retarded , because that means that all things of the universe are infinite, again... retarded , the universe though is, while constantly growing, not entirely infinite, and given one of the many quantum theories, all of which you seem unfamiliar with, and if you are I'm talking about the one about parallel universes, yes there is one like that , then are you saying that all of these universes are joined touching with no differenciation? That would be ONE universe , not parallels. Please have a good day...(douche)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what the **** is your problem?

 

Physically it's necessary to distinguish three things: the vacuum, the emptiness and the nothing. The vacuum is a space not filled for any matter, nor solid, nor liquid, nor gaseous, nor plasma. But it can contain fields: electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, light, radio waves or other not material fields. The emptiness already would be a space void of matter and any other thing-fields, light, even waves. But the emptiness is still empty space, that is, it possesses the capacity to fit something, but it does not encompass any physically tangible entity. Although, complete emptiness does not exist in the Universe since all the space is filled with gravitational fields and the light that travels through it, neutrinos and other particles and fields, even rarefied are contained within it as well. But not even space itself exists in nothing, and it does not have the ability to be filled with something. Nothing is not a place.

 

As I said.. using this definition "Nothing" does not exist.. since all space is (as far as we know) capable of containing matter or electrical fields etc and waves, lightwaves/particles etc

 

I don't agree with this definition - which was my point!

 

oh and please refrain from being a ****ing troll in the future!

Hmmm, can we claim that the universe is not infinite?

 

It's clearly not infinitely old (too many paradoxes with that one), but who's to say it's not infinite in matter?

...

Why couldn't the universe be infinite?

Assuming, that the universe has been constantly expanding since it's inception, and it is not being infinitely old, it would only be a finite size, wouldn't it ?

 

Otherwise, for it to be infinitely big, it would have been growing forever...

what the **** is your problem? 

Somebody probably forgot to store their popular science magazines out of his reach again