In order to divided anything there first must be an equation above zero. Nothing has
nothing to equate and therefore cannot possess dualism, or an opposite. and cannot divide
itself into something. To be exact, the only thing about nothing which has probative reality is the word itself. The very moment, or instant one says nothing is nothing, it become something, in the sequence of thoughts.  This activity give it volume and that makes it into something.

Now allow me to clarify what I’m saying.  To do this let me say that if nothing exist here, and nothing exist there, the existence of nothing is not. This means any point of reference one may come up with exist, means that reference had to come from something. This nullifies and voids any statement which projects a paradox being created of something existing where nothing is.  To be sure, by nothing never be able to change, then nothing is absolutely nothing, and cannot change into something to equate a division of zero tolerance.  This makes the zero-point also a nothingness, which means there can be not particles to equate into something which would provide a division to bcome the basis for relative perspectives or reference points that don’t literally exist as something.

zarcus - 26 August 2007 02:36 PM

I wonder if what is meant by ‘self-contradictory’ is only the idea that ‘nothing’ exist in concept, but to measure ‘nothing’ is impossible.

I’m not following you here. Let’s take an example. I can measure one inch, I can measure two inches, in just as simple a way I can measure no inches. Similarly, we can measure a vacuum; we can measure no marbles just as easy as a dozen ...

Not sure I understand the stuff on “contingent necessity” or where Shermer is going with that.

.

.

.

.

Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist.

If nothingness does not exist, then how can it be paradoxical?  How can we even be discussing it?

rsonin - 26 August 2007 09:47 PM

How can we even be discussing it?

Discussing what?

:tongue:

‘Nothing’    :ohoh:

rsonin - 26 August 2007 09:47 PM

Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist.

If nothingness does not exist, then how can it be paradoxical?  How can we even be discussing it?

I think what is being said in that statement may be , the idea of absolute nothingness is self contradictory.  There can not be ‘nothing’, only in a conceptual sense. How could one imagine, or show ‘absolute nothingness’ coherently? Something measurable, even in a negative sense is not ‘nothing’.

zarcus - 26 August 2007 11:05 PM

How could one imagine, or show ‘absolute nothingness’ coherently? Something measurable, even in a negative sense is not ‘nothing’.

Hmmm ... well, it sounds to me like we have a couple of separate things here. On the one hand we have “absolute nothingness” and on the other hand we have “nothing”.

“Nothing” is a very simple word that we use all the time without any difficulty.

—What do you have in your hand? Nothing.

—What’s in the box? Nothing.

—What’d you just say? Nothing.

These are “measurable” in any coherent sense of measurability we could like. We can quibble about what counts, but we all know what the word means in context.

Now, we also had this other troublesome concept, “absolute nothingness”. That isn’t the sort of thing we encounter in everyday conversation very often, except perhaps when discussing death. And it is somewhat paradoxical, since it seems that in the act of conceiving it, we are perhaps leaving room for the possibility that the nothingness we’re conceiving of isn’t—to the fullest degree—“absolute”. But then, this is partly the fault of the word “absolute”. It takes us out of the realm of ordinary discourse into a rarified technical atmosphere, where we aren’t quite sure what we are saying anymore.

But then we should return back to the subject at hand and ask if that really matters. I mean, what is the crucial context in which we must have a complete grasp upon the concept of “absolute nothingness”? Isn’t the concept of mere “nothingness” enough?

I will give you my true insight into what you have presented to me.

Zarcus ask Is it possible that the reference point is only ‘something’ because it is recognized to exist, and therefore can be measured, and/or observed? ‘Something’ then must be the product of the immeasurable ‘nothing’, though we realize the ‘nothing’ must have existed, with properties found in the measurable ‘something’. The reason to refer to the ‘nothing’ is only because it can not be measured or observed. We have nothing to reference of ‘nothing’ outside of what is now ‘something’. This does not say that the ‘nothing’ never existed; just there is no way to tell what the ‘something’ was in prior states. Therefore the ‘nothing’ can only exist in concept.

Zarcus I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “nature abhors a vacuum” in all your studies. There was a time when religion proposed a vacuum besides God, but then was influenced by scientific implications of primal substance and so changed its stance to one which conformed to the big-bang and standard model. Then there was another change which implied an infinite Universe whereby energy is stretched to infinite proportions and even further to suggest that space forms matter, and this made the Hindus et al. happy because they envisioned a universal creation based on light forms everywhere which make up the fabric of space. But both stances cling to “something” because people are just aching to believe in “something” which continues to pester the absolute Void for no other reason than to exist as its own reality.  That reality exist as a Ruler of Measurement which void your statement

there is no way to tell what the ‘something’ was in prior states

The questions, “Where are these things which define something,  and how much space do they occupy?” I find in all you have put forth in your post these question does not arise in your normal course of explanation.  Is this because many philosophers will be inclined to say that either the question makes no sense, or the answer is a simple Nowhere. None?

What is the measurement of space?  There can be no measurement of space.  What instrument is used to gauge space? Light.  But what is space is the consuming question which proceed the question above being this entire conversation is based on nothing becoming something.

The Zero.  Zero has nothing in its middle, and nothing beyond the endless invisible perimeter which makes one aware “imaginative” that the zero exist. The continuous imaginary outline, which has no beginning nor end is an illusion, and it is the illusion that there is one line which makes the nothingness of zero exist in a dimension where matter is the focus point.

Now it has been said that zero is the perfect number.  But to be able to use zero you need two solid sets of numbers,  zero is not a solid number.  In reality of this material world, there is only one number which exist, “one.”  Example, in order to reach two, you need to add one and one.  But in adding one and one, you do not have two independent numbers, you have only the one. Therefore, to reach two when counting you have to extend the one, which is the only number which is an entity in and of itself.  Ah, but you say, the same principle can be applied with two zero’s.  But this can’t be done because if this should take place, the zero’s have been replaced with the number “one” for definition So add two zero’s and what comes up?  either two definition which pan out to be one, or the number two. In any case zero has been eliminated by definition.  And it was the invisible definition which gave it substance to be counted.

So when one use the term zero as a place holder “when counting,” they are not beginning their count from that place holder of nothingness, they begin counting from the only number which exist, which is “one.” Thus, the infinity of numbers are in the one, and to say one and one are two, counting two independent numbers therefrom as though they were not of the one is not the reality of numbers All numbers are only the extended one. Therefore two is only an extension of one, which can be fractionalized to either add or subtract from the one.  If this is not true, then someone can produce an independent number to prove their position without using “.“one.  One is the only number which is an entity in and of itself.

There is no such thing as ‘unstable nothing.’  All which we deem as nothing is filled, not with abstractness, but the building block of the visible and invisible. This building block is known as Consciousness, and it is Consciousness which is the ‘something’ which eliminates that which you state to be recognizable as ‘unstable nothing.’  The mere fact this so called ‘unstable nothing’ can be recognized make it ‘something.’ 

All which appear to be empty space and voids are filled with the thought-life of the forms of that Consciousness, visible and invisible.  Space and voids are filled with light.  And the Ruler of Measurement, thus the Principle and base for numbers cannot be found to be an entity of ‘unstable nothing.’

.

.

I’m still not following you. The only sense in which something can come from nothing “in a purely scientific sense” depends on quantum mechanical fluctuations. While that may be meaningful when we are discussing such things as virtual particles, it is totally beside the point when we get at anything even large enough to be seen with a light microscope. Nothing much larger than an atom can come from nothing. Or perhaps better put, it is vanishingly unlikely that anything large enough to be seen with a light microscope could come from nothing.

So the common usage of ‘nothing coming from nothing’ is quite coherent in science. Indeed, it’s the basis of the first law of thermodynamics. Mass/energy is conserved in any closed system. Nothing comes from nothing.