See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Comments
mike1962 @ 273
Something that has attributes and properties, such as the quantum “foam” has no business being called “nothing.” Ever.
Quantum foam is about universe structure at Planck scale. It depends on Quantum gravity, which is still a speculation, and will remain so till we find gravitonsMe_Think
January 7, 2015
January
01
Jan
7
07
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
We are using nothingness in the same sense. Is the absence of space and time stable, or must it necessarily collapse into something? No one knows. It’s a thought-experiment, just like considering the classical vacuum in light of quantum theory.
Let's end the thought-experiment right now. “Nothingness” is the non-existence of anything. Is a "quantum vacuum" nothing? No, it's a quantum vacuum. Can "nothing" be unstable? No, because in order for something to be unstable it must exist and when something exist it is not nothing.
Mapou,
Can nothing be divided into parts? No, because nothing is not something that has parts. Maybe "Mapou's nothing" can be divided, but that means that "Mapou's nothing" is not really nothing.Box
January 7, 2015
January
01
Jan
7
07
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Keep in mind that the classical vacuum was once thought to be preposterous by fuddy duddies. Then, when the classical vacuum was discovered, quantum fluctuations were thought to be preposterous by still more fuddy duddies.
Just because we have found no solution to the fine-tuning problem doesn't mean fine-tuning isn't due to some underlying natural principle. Claiming such a principle can't exist is just your inner-fuddy duddy talking.Zachriel
January 7, 2015
January
01
Jan
7
07
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Regardless, even if this is simply a case of miscommunication it does not follow that the quantum vacuum is in any way analogous to nothingness as Zac seems to be implying.
The perfect vacuum is an abstraction, like Einstein chasing a beam of light on his snow sled. However, in physical reality, the vacuum is unstable.
fifthmonarchyman: Do you agree that we can’t know if nothingness is unstable?
That is correct at this point. Whether it can be discovered, or even if it is a viable question, is not known at this time. That's why it is called speculation.
Box (quoting): The “scientific” “explanations” of the origin of the universe from “nothing” one keeps hearing in recent years are really no less stupid than this “explanation” of the house.
It's a thought-experiment, not an explanation. There is no theory of everthing.
fifthmonarchyman: shouldn’t use the term “nothing” in an eccentric way when it actually means something.
vacuum, a space absolutely devoid of matter
When we consider the classical vacuum in light of quantum theory, it is unstable. We are using nothingness in the same sense. Is the absence of space and time stable, or must it necessarily collapse into something? No one knows. It's a thought-experiment, just like considering the classical vacuum in light of quantum theory.Zachriel
January 7, 2015
January
01
Jan
7
07
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
"Me_Think: zac certainly didn’t mean nothingness in the traditional sense, as qualified by his comments later."
"They" shouldn't use the term "nothing" in an eccentric way when it actually means something. It confuses people. What does confusing people accomplish except to confuse them?
Something that has attributes and properties, such as the quantum "foam" has no business being called "nothing." Ever.
To generalize that: something should never be called nothing.
Now, for our musical interlude...
"Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could"
--The Sound of Musicmike1962
January 7, 2015
January
01
Jan
7
07
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 271,
Pass the duct tape. Me noggin she is fixing to blow
I really can't be sure if by nothingness you mean empty space, till you confirm, because the standard definition of nothingness is absence of anything (it could mean absence of even quantum fluctuations), zac certainly didn't mean nothingness in the traditional sense, as qualified by his comments later.Me_Think
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
me before
it does not follow that the quantum vacuum is in any way analogous to nothingness.
me_thinks
If by nothingness you mean empty space as in QM,
Me now
Pass the duct tape. Me noggin she is fixing to blow
;-)
Peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 267
Regardless, even if this is simply a case of miscommunication it does not follow that the quantum vacuum is in any way analogous to nothingness as Zac seems to be implying.
Zac does say empty space is seething with quantum fluctuations (# 263)
Do you agree that we can’t know if nothingness is unstable?
If by nothingness you mean empty space as in QM, then of course it is unstable, that's the reason you have fluctuations. The 'potential well' is unstable. Without instability,there can be no quantum fluctuation.
p.s: I am a nice guy and believe everyone is nice enough :-)Me_Think
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Here's my take on it. Everything physical must come from nothing out of logical necessity. Why? It's because this is the only ontology of substance that does not lead to an infinite regress. You no longer have to ask, what is X made of, ad eternam. Everything is made of nothing.
How can everything come from nothing? Well, the only way one can get something from 'nothing' is by dividing 'nothing' into opposite pairs such that positive things balance out negative things. In other words, everything in the universe must sum up to zero. This is why we live in a Yin-yang universe. Zero is ONE, the true loneliest number, and everything is ONE. The conservation of 'nothing' is the mother of all conservation principles. Nature automatically attempts to correct any violation to the conservation of nothing. Change/motion is nature's way of correcting violations.
'Nothing' is stable and can only be separated by a creative force. This is where the Yin-yang nature of reality comes out in its full glory. One the one hand we must have the physical realm where things can be created and annihilated. On the other hand, we must have a creative realm with the ability to create and destroy. It's a realm where nothing can be created nor destroyed. In that realm, things just are.
There is more to this hypothesis but this is neither the place nor the time for it. Just saying.Mapou
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Excellent commentary by Edward Feser on "nothingness".
Excerpt:
So what’s the point of all this ado about nothing? You know what the point is: To try to show that physics alone can explain the existence of the universe. Hence the key line of the piece: “Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.” But read in a straightforward way, this is just nonsense, for reasons of the sort already given: If this so-called “nothingness” has a “nature” and “does” things, then it isn’t really “nothingness” at all that we’re talking about. And of course, the article and the physicists it quotes don’t really mean “nothingness” in a straightforward way in the first place. They mean a “roiling broth” governed by the laws of quantum theory, entropy, etc. and that not only isn’t nothing, but just is part of the universe and therefore just is part of the explanandum and therefore does nothing whatsoever to explain that explanandum.
You might as well say: “Let me explain how this whole house is held up by nothing. Consider the floor, which is what I really mean by ‘nothing.’ Now, the rest of the house is held up by the floor. Thus, I’ve explained how the whole house is held up by nothing!” Well, no you haven’t. You’ve “explained” at most how part of the house is held up by another part, but you’ve left unexplained how the floor itself is held up, and thus (since the floor is itself part of the house) you haven’t really explained at all how the house as a whole is held up, either by “nothing” or by anything else. Furthermore, you’ve made what is really just sheer muddleheadedness sound profound by using “nothing” in an eccentric way.
The “scientific” “explanations” of the origin of the universe from “nothing” one keeps hearing in recent years are really no less stupid than this “explanation” of the house. They aren’t serious physics, they aren’t serious philosophy, they aren’t serious anything except seriously bad arguments, textbook instances of the fallacy of equivocation.
Box
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
@Me_think
You seem like a nice enough guy. I'm sure we could have a few laughs at the local tractor pull/fish fry.
But surely you understand the difference between a PERFECT vacuum and veritable particle zoo we are talking about when it comes to QM.
Regardless, even if this is simply a case of miscommunication it does not follow that the quantum vacuum is in any way analogous to nothingness as Zac seems to be implying.
lets cut to the chase
Do you agree that we can't know if nothingness is unstable?
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 262
That was the sound of the abandonment of logic and the embracing of the irrational.
That doesn't follow from Zac's comment. I am sure he meant the same thing that you quoted from wiki. (Edit: now proved by his comment #263)Me_Think
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
JimFit @ 242
You said that they suffer from photophobia not me. Light was used in the experiement not to control this single cell organism but to make it create a decision
Ha, I see what got you confused. Do you think since oil is hydrophobic, it emotionally fears water ?
Light was used to create barriers (used to represent mountains and rivers in the map) in Tokyo experiment.
Consciousness exists in brainless organisms and that is a fact that you must accept.
When I throw a ball, it follows a path that has the least difference between Kinetic and potential energy. Does it mean the ball is conscious and making decision of which path to follow ?
Okay, how do you know that there was a Universe before our Universe to begin with. Your answer is full of assumptions and i give you facts, you didn’t even read my answer where i analyze the flaws of your scenario. To have a Universe the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang must be one part in a hundred thousand million million or else the universe will collapse into a fireball
Big crunch of 'earlier' universe leading to singularity of BigBang of our universe is a hypothesis. Do you have a better one explaining both singularity and low entropy ?
There is no scientific evidence that chance exist, at least intention is part of some Sciences, chance is not!
So the whole field of probability is make-believe ?
WE ARE THE IMAGES OF GOD NOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM GOD! We choose to be perfect like God and therefor equal in understanding. Christianity comes with a very special message, that God created us due to His unconditional love, He didn’t had a purpose, eternity is purposeless, He just created us because He loves us, WE HAVE THE PURPOSE TO BECAME PERFECT LIKE GOD AND THEREFOR ETERNAL!
I have no problem with that, who am I to discourage you from seeking solace in whatever you believe in?Me_Think
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
FFM: That was the sound of the abandonment of logic and the embracing of the irrational.
Very well put. Without God there is no coherent concept of reality.
BTW space is not nothingBox
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: That was the sound of the abandonment of logic and the embracing of the irrational.
Observe empty space. Due to the uncertainty principle, there will be some uncertainty about the energy within that space, especially over short times-scales, called quantum fluctuations. Empty space, therefore, is actually seething with quantum fluctuations. This can result in short violations of the conservation of energy.
Sorry that reality doesn't conform to your preconceptions.Zachriel
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Zac said,
A perfect vacuum is unstable.
I say,
That was the sound of the abandonment of logic and the embracing of the irrational.
from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
quote:
According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.
end quote:
you can have him Box
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: A quantum vacuum is not a perfect vacuum. It contains potentialities at least.
A perfect vacuum is unstable. It's possible that the absence of time and space is also unstable.Zachriel
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
zac says,
Is nothingness unstable? No one knows.
I say,
If fact we do know definitionaly
1)nothing is nothing
2)instability is something
3)Therefore nothingness is not unstable.
This is very simple stuff
You say,
It’s like asking if a perfect vacuum is unstable.
I say,
A quantum vacuum is not a perfect vacuum. It contains potentialities at least.
if a perfect vacuum was unstable literally anything could happen at anytime for no reason at all and your beloved science would be impossible.
Do you honestly want to go down that road?
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Box: To be a cause, an object must exist, so how can it cause its existence?
Zachriel: With quantum and relativity theories as examples, you simply can’t draw any firm conclusions without evidence.
How so? Do they prove that X can be the cause of its own existence?Box
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: So you say these things even though you don’t know what you mean to imply by them.
They are conjectures.
fifthmonarchyman: Logically can true absolute nothingness be unstable?
It's like asking if a perfect vacuum is unstable. It is. Is nothingness unstable? No one knows.Zachriel
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Zac says,
No one knows exactly.
I say,
So you say these things even though you don't know what you mean to imply by them. ok then
let's take this one step at a time.
Logically can true absolute nothingness be unstable?
yes or no please
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: No one thinks a quantum vacuum is nothing.
No, it's an otherwise empty volume.
fifthmonarchyman: what do you mean to imply by “nothingness is unstable”
No one knows exactly. It's just a conjecture analogous to the quantum vacuum.Zachriel
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Zac said,
Quantum and relativity theories are well beyond ordinary comprehension. And they would be considered far more ordinary than the Big Bang singularity.
I say
I have nothing against strangeness and paradox it's logical impossibilities that bug me.
If the impossible can happen then anything is possible. Not only possible but probable
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Zac says,
It’s no different than saying the vacuum is full of particles.
I say,
No one thinks a quantum vacuum is nothing. So there is a huge difference
You are confusing a relative vacuum with absolute nothingness.
If you trying to say that nothingness is like the quantum vacuum all you have done is move back a step.
Where did the vacuum come from?
If you are saying that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness that is another kettle of fish.
Clear thinking can be your friend.
what do you mean to imply by "nothingness is unstable"
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Box: the “before”, in #248, obviously concerns a logical or explanatory priority, not a chronological priority.
With quantum and relativity theories as examples, you simply can't draw any firm conclusions without evidence.
fifthmonarchyman: Use your head man. To say that nothingness is unstable is to say that “nothing is something”.
It's no different than saying a quantum vacuum is full of particles.
fifthmonarchyman: If the reason is beyond logic it is not just beyond ordinary comprehension it’s beyond any comprehension period.
Use your head man. Quantum and relativity theories are well beyond ordinary comprehension. And they would be considered far more ordinary than the Big Bang singularity.Zachriel
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Zac says,
It’s been suggested by physicists that nothingness is unstable
I say
Instability is something!!!! Use your head man.
To say that nothingness is unstable is to say that "nothing is something".
pure logical nonsense
This just proves that being a physicist does not necessarily make one the brightest bulb in the pack
zac says,
The reason for the so-called fine-tuning may be even stranger, something beyond ordinary comprehension.
I say
If the reason is beyond logic it is not just beyond ordinary comprehension it's beyond any comprehension period.
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel, the “before”, in #248, obviously concerns a logical or explanatory priority, not a chronological priority.
Edit: To be a cause, an object must exist, so how can it cause its existence?Box
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Think of it this way. When the periodic table was discovered, and the early experiments with the atom were done, no one envisioned that the quantum realm could be so strange. The reason for the so-called fine-tuning may be even stranger, something beyond ordinary comprehension. No one knows.Zachriel
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Box: In order for X to cause its own existence, X has to exist before X exists.
Temporal order may not matter when there is no time. It's been suggested by physicists that nothingness is unstable.Zachriel
January 6, 2015
January
01
Jan
6
06
2015
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
In order for X to cause its own existence, X has to exist before X exists.Box