eh

I noticed there was a poll on the randi.org UBB about nothingness. Basically, the poll asked what the visitors thought about the concept of nothingness. Possible answers were:

-No, nothing cannot be. There has never been nothing
-Yes, once there was nothing. Nothingness is a state which can exist/has existed
-agnostic on the issue

I was surprised to see that 43% of those who responded said they were agnostic on the issue. How can one even ask if a universe poped out of nothing?

I'm wondering how such a poll would do on the boards here. This topic seems to come up often here, especially when discussing cosmology. I don't think this UBB supports polls, so we'll have to do things the old fashioned way.

Thoughts?

tronvillain

I would have to say that nothing cannot be, by definition.

enemigo

There has never been nothing. Nothingness can not exist.

richard

AdamWho

You could at least provide a link, I couldn't find it.

DieToDeath

...eh. The issue of "nothing" is pretty mind-boggling. You'd figure that everything has to have a point of creation, because nothing exists forever, and by that reasoning there was nothing. But then, going the other way, all matter had to be created out of SOMETHING, because spontaneous creation of matter is an impossibility. Therefore one would say no, there was nothing. And, in conclusion, there's no way to tell.
>_< It hurts to think about.

seebs

I'm completely agnostic on the issue, religious beliefs aside. I see no scientific or logical basis for forming an opinion. A few thoughts:

Option #1: Nothing *can* exist, but generally doesn't.

Option #2: Nothing *did* exist. The rule that matter can't just "pop up" only applies under the circumstances we're in now; under other circumstances, it can, we just haven't seen those circumstances.

Option #3: This has always been here.

I dunno. There's lots of options. I have no framework for telling them apart; it seems to me that, in general, I can neither show that nothingness is possible, nor show that it isn't, and I have no way of collecting data about weird boundary conditions.

DieToDeath

It's just impossible to tell either way. If you're not unsure about it, something's wrong with you. It's not something that can be firmly believed in or not, like a form of god.

eh

The link is at <a href="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=9afe5ae94cc8ba4a854dde0c83d0e62e& threadid=3789" target="_blank">http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=9afe5ae94cc8ba4a854dde0c83d0e62e& threadid=3789</a>

I think some basic logic would help those agnostic on the issue. But I was just interested in what people here thought anyway.

DieToDeath

No, it really wouldn't. "Some basic logic" can prove nothing.

scigirl

This thread is about nothing!

Sorry I couldn't resist.

(slinks back to her corner in E/C)

scigirl