Agnostic.com

54 10

THE CONCEPT OF NOTHING. I really do not get this myself. I simply cannot imagine "nothing." Let's suppose you open a door to a bare room and you think you see nothing. The room is bare and not furnished but you still see something. How can there be nothing? Can your mind grasp or picture just how "nothing" would look? I don't think so.

Scientists claim our universe came out of "nothing" but they admit there is a lot of "something" in dark matter that we just do not see. That is why it is called dark matter. We keep trying to see it but nothing is working out so far. Believers claim that it is god coming forth out of nothing and creating everything from nothing. They totally miss the point.

Can you imagine "nothing" and how do you explain "nothing?" I have no known references to do so.

DenoPenno 9 Oct 20
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

54 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

Nothing is a metaphysical concept with no reality we can possibly comprehend. If we speak about "Nothing", we make it into a concept, so it becomes something. Nothing is the absence of something, & so becomes a thing, so the term is self contradictory.

If you look in an "empty" room, you might see total darkness, but that is something. The room, if it is on this planet, has air in it, especially when you open the door. We can't see that, but it is something. The room has space, which is something, & so on

3

I've just read your post and felt nothing, does that help?

3

Just the mathematical concept of zero took quite a while to catch on - once it did things really began to happen.
Wonder if the same will be true if people ever understand nothing?

3

This is a misunderstanding . . .
"Scientists claim our universe came out of "nothing" "
NO they do not.
We can observe the universe expanding. Logic dictates if you follow such expansion back it becomes one thing because of the nature of the observed expansion.
We named that the singularity.
We do not have a clue what is before that, we have ideas and as we learn more those ideas grow as new models replace old ones. always striving to make better ones.
But no one knows, evidentially.

The most likely culprit responsible is an unknown in Quantum, but science does not know or claim something came from nothing.

THAT is the Bible.

Edwin Hubble was less sure that we can observe the universe expanding.

"If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . The observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young.

“On the other hand, if red shifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.“

— Edwin Hubble, 1937 Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices

LeMaitre used Hubble's first "If...." statement to support the Genesis story. He had no evidence that the red shifts are a Doppler shift but fundamentalist xians needed a creation to refute Darwin. They grabbed LeMaitre's Primeval Atom and they still have it.

@yvilletom Interesting. Wonder who is using that to support Simulation Theory, lol.

I myself am comfortable with "we don't know, yet"
I find it more inspiring to have something to figure out, than to imagine some unknown unknowable being has all the answers, and never learned to share well.

All a matter of perspective.

@yvilletom Even with an assumption Hubble was right, it would not support genesis, they have light before the syn or stars. There is a firmament in heaven. and while the Earth took days to create, the enirty of the universe took an afternoon.

It did serve as a good lesson tale to tribal folks. (Life sucks cause we fucked up. Childbirth is bloody, dangerous and painful because Eve fucked up. Work is hard because we did not appreciate what we had.) Neat succient and tidy, unlike reality but very much like literature (well, not Kafka and some others but generally so).

3

scientists do not claim the universe came out of nothing; they are always trying to figure out what came before the singularity and the big bang.

i am only human and thus cannot imagine nothing. that is a failure of my/our imagination, though, not a failure of science. that explains why we fear death, too.

g

2

It is perhaps beyond our comprehension.

I agree with you. With time and increased knowledge we will come closer. But now, it is impossible to comprehend. And those who refer to Sagan are not thinking at all an are just like anyone who follows a religious belief blindly.

2

Think about when before you were born that is a very good concept of nothing

Nothing you were aware of, but that doesn't mean there was nothing. Our awareness is not the determiner of existence

@Remiforce I agree I was just trying to give you some basis for comparison

2

Scientists do not claim that the Big Bang came out of nothing. What we don't know is what came before because the actual Big Bang event destroyed the evidence of what existed prior. That doesn't mean it came out of nothing.

As I understand it, in order to have something (as opposed to nothing) one must have both time and matter. One doesn't have time until you have matter moving through space to obviate time.

If the Universe is expanding as hypothesized by science, then the Universe must have a edge. If it has an edge and is expanding, then there must be a point in which it has not reached. Without having reached beyond the edge, then matter is missing. Therefore, without matter no time exists yet. Therefore it doesn't exist yet. Therefore, beyond the edge of the Universe is nothing.

The only exception I can think of, is if black matter is totally ubiquitous and exists regardless of the expanse of the Universe.

The inability to percieve does not negate the premise.

2

Nothing
A long time ago my then gf was having her place renovated by the council landlords. She could have moved out but preferred to stay even without a full bathroom or kitchen. She also let someone use her address for bail. He went missing and the cops came round to try and find him.
They came in and I could not resist saying "Dont look in the kitchen"
"Why what's in there?"
"Nothing"
"What do you mean nothing?"
"Nothing. There is nothing in there"
He opened the kitchen door to find ... nothing. No cupboards, sink, washing machine, pots, pans, dishes. tiles plaster.... nothing

2

There never has been nor ever will be nothing. 'i can see no beginning nor end to anything' Hutton. The universe is infinite in both time and space.

The astronomer Edwin Hubble (I posted his words a few comments down) and I agree, the universe is extended indefinitely in time and space.

2

I find nothing quite easy to conceptualize (though this is an odd term as you will soon see). So I have aphantasia, which is the lack of a mind's eye (or any other sense in my particular case). I can't force myself to hallucinate (how I view mental visualizers as they can see something that is not there). It's not blackness, it is just not anything, no thing in a literal sense. This, it seems, translates over very well to conceptualizing nothing.

2

As far as I know, no scientist (excluding Christian scientists) claim the universe came out of "nothing". In fact the first law of dynamics tells us that energy can NEVER be created nor destroyed.

Then Einstein tells us matter and energy are the same thing in different forms.

The combination suggests to me the energy of the total universe is eternal, it didn't have to come from anywhere or nowhere, it simply is and always has been .... though not in the form we now know it, but it wasn't "nothing".

Einstein's famous formula does say that but he was a mathematician, not a scientist, and he produced no evidence.

When I lack evidence I'm ok with saying I don't know. Religious folk seem to have a need to know so they make up stuff.

@yvilletom Einstein did not produce evidence, his equations explained what was happening when light was converted to energy in a photo-electric junction. So there was that evidence already. Then the Manhattan project as well as the development of fission energy pretty well established his formulae as fact.

But yes, unlike the religious community he was not just making stuff up and "BELIEVING" it into existence.

2

It’s just too abstract a concept, we can only imagine what we have already experienced, and that has only ever been something material.

2

That's how I understood Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing. He seemed to be saying nothing is possibly a backdrop on which to 'hang' things, for want of a better word.

If there was nothing to literally hang things, presumably they would fall somewhere, but where? up or down?

@Mcflewster I don't know. Maybe backdrop is the wrong word. It's one-dimensional and gives the ancient idea of stars and planets nailed to the wall of outer space. I suppose a three-dimensional backdrop might do it with everything running around inside it.

Did you see the New York Times' review of Krauss' book? I read of it and a search found it. The reviewer, a Ph.D. in philosophy, gave it a failing grade.

@yvilletom LOL. No, I didn't see it.

@brentan good suggestion but are we just playing with words. They are all we have I suppose.

2

I think of nothing as an absence of matter.

It's also the absence of space and time. Hard to get your head around.

@Metahuman The way I read your first sentence, you are defining the word "nothing" as the absence of space and time. Do you intend it to be read that way?

@yvilletom as we're discussing matters at the border of human understanding, words and language break down. I'm not sure that the word exists for the concept that the OP was trying to express. Maybe, "non existence" is a better expression than "nothing". I'm really not trying to define the word, just playing with the concept which, being maybe impossible to even imagine, how much less so can be put into words.

1

I know of no cosmological model that even implies that the universe came from nothing. *Your citation needed.
Between every thought, nothing. between every atom, nothing.
It is of little surprise that our brains evolved in an environment where the experience of no thing was not an important factor.

Right. The universe did not come from “nothing”, instead, it expanded from a highly dense and highly hot state. But, aside from that error, the central point of the initial post is well taken. It is correct to say that there is no reference that our brain can use to conceptualize the full notion of NOTHING.
And even if we were able to get rid of all matter in the universe, we would still have space/time, which does bend and warp and is stretched and compressed by gravitational influences., so, it is not NOTHING.
Interesting question.

1

No astrophysicist or cosmologist that I am aware of has ever asserted that "our universe came out of nothing". The concept of "nothing" is an abstract human construct that has no existence in reality. Indeed, if it did, it would not be "nothing".

1

Well, the scientific theory is that, " In the beginning there was a Singularity so compressed was the matter it contained that it eventually exploded and, VOILA, the universe came into being in a HUGE Bang, i.e. the Big Bang Theory was postulated.
However, ask any Faithfool and they will ardently tell that " In the beginning there was nothing, only god, and from that 'nothing' god created EVERYTHING."
What makes me curious about the Creation Myth is this, How can something that is, according to Theist reasoning (???), for arguments sake, a shapeless, ethereal Entity, A) suddenly realize that it it exists in the first place, B) suddenly realize that IT must create ANYTHING at all simply to prove (???) that it exists AND IS Omnipotent, Omnipresent, etc, etc, WITHOUT there being ANYTHING around it, and, last but DEFINITELY, by no means LEAST of ALL, C) actually CREATE everything and ANYTHING from ABSOLUTELY nothing simply by the uttered word?
I mean, that IS about as logical as saying " If Elephants had wings then they'd be birds or bees," is it not?
I suppose that, technically speaking, NOTHING is the absence of Something, ergo the vice versa applies as well.

I am always fascinated by this maths; God+Nothing=Nothing God+Time+Nothing= Everything.
If one has god and nothing, one still has nothing.

@CapriKious Exactly.
And I have often hypothesized, though I am most definitely NOT a Geological or whatever Scientist, that these 'Black Holes' that have been theorized about in this Universe MAY just be something akin to a 'recycling' system that collects matter from 1 Universe, compresses it and eventually 'injects' it into another, newer, still forming Universe, though that hypothesis has been laughed many times, I tend to think that, since the Universe is basically a system of recycling and reusing then WHY shouldn't it be that this Universe is NOT the resultant of such recycling/reusing efforts?
After all, IF these 'Black Holes' ARE sucking in matter, etc, compressing it into a Singularity then, should NOT those self-same Singularities, that have growing for billions of years, also have become so compressed by now that they too would have exploded just as did the one that caused the 'Big Bang' in the first place?

@Triphid In the beginning was the word and the word was nothing and nothing was god.

@CapriKious Yes, well technically speaking, a 'word' IS nothing more than waves of vibrations in Air. water or a solid that is caused by a source, i.e. the vocal chords in humans for example, ergo, then, and logically speaking, this non-corporeal entity (god thingy) COULD NOT have uttered a word since, being non-corporeal, it had no physical means to do so PLUS there WAS nothing, as Christians will so vehemently tell us, not even air nor atmosphere for the resultant waves of vibrations to travel through thus creating the impressions of a 'word' to the auditory organ/s, the ears.
Therefore, in ALL actual FACT, Nothing simply came FROM Nothing producing ACTUALLY nothing at all.

@Triphid *buuurp

@CapriKious LOL, even a mere 'buuurp' is nothing more than gas causing a vibration in the air as it passes from the stomach through the oesophagus to the mouth and out into the surrounds, ergo, without a corporeal 'body' even that WOULD be a complete impossibility.

1

The best nothing I can think of is Seinfeld......

1

I can only point you to read "A Universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, a physicist from a top university i. Arizona.

I have not read the book yet, but it is next on my reading list after Peter Woit's "Not even Wrong".

There is also an audio book for it.

Supposed it explains the physics of "nothing" and how the universe can come from it.

1

I always say that the nothing they refer to is something, it's just something we can't directly observe yet.

Much like how we called it the dark side of the moon when we couldn't observe it. It was never literally dark, it was simply unobservable.

The nothing really is something, just something we can't observe yet.

That's my typical go-to for explaining "nothing" to a believer. I mean, it doesn't help though. As long as there is something unknown to us, there will always be room for belief in believers.. and there will always be something unknown to us. It'll be impossible to combat religious belief with something that is physically unobservable with the current limit to our technology.

1

This may have nothing to do with the line of thought you’re after, but there are 3 ways I think of “nothingness.” Visually it’s usually represented as a pure white field if someone finds themselves in an empty dimension in movies or TV. Standing on one big endless blank page, with no walls or ceiling. I’d picture it more as pure darkness. Close your eyes and cover them to eliminate any light. That’s nothing to me.

Mathematically the digit zero is fascinating. It has no value but you still must use it when counting, as a placeholder and to emphasize the fact that 1 isn’t where counting begins. It’s why the 19th century was the 1800s, because the first century was years 0-99. Its significance is huge in binary, being only one of 2 digits that can program an electrical circuit. Off and on is all you’ve got. A computer can only count to 1 basically and we put a bunch of those gates side by side until we could do astronomical calculations. Each place value of counting to 1 makes the possible number go up exponentially, doubling for every place value.

The third way is the Buddhist concept of nothingness. It doesn’t mean nothing, it means no thingness. Meaning separate countable things do not exist. It’s all interconnected, made of the same stuff, occupying the same timeline and constantly interacting such that it must be considered one system. We chop nouns and events up out of their context in history class and then have trouble reverse engineering the surrounding timeline to understand precipitating factors and consequences. In reality it all flowed into one another like an inseparable river. Everything that’s ever been done by everything that’s ever existed was one long chain of cause and effect. Nothingness is the state of being in the river, going with the flow, not standing on shore dipping cups out trying to organize them back in order.

1

We are using our own definitions, obtained from our limited knowledge, to describe the indescribable. We are "personifying" our lack of knowledge, that is how religions start. Science will eventually define what our minds can conceptualize, maybe we will know all, more, or find we can only know bits and pieces. What we can do is refrain from narrowing our view.

1

Do you have faith of eternity with god? Is it not equally unimaginable? People refer to the concepts 0 and infinity often. Helpful explanatory concepts. Real? Not that I know. To my knowledge noone in science says we come from nothing (quantum fluctuations, etc...) is not nothing. Scientist are still working at that. The inquiry continues...

1
Word Level 8 Oct 20, 2019
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:416223
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.