SRWelch

Greetings,

I'm interested in what anyone might have to say about "zero ontology," or the nature of "nothingness" (i.e. the nihilo of creation ex-). In what ways has this been explored philosophically?

The oft-quoted remark that the Big Bang singularity resulted from a quantum fluctuation, and that such fluctuations "just happen from time to time", is not particularly satifying. It implies some sort of "existence" out of which a singularity could occur -- not exactly nihilo. Perhaps the common assumptions regarding "nothingness" are flawed . . . leading back to my original question here.

I've heard that Popper or others might have tried tackling this subject . . . any ideas?

Thanks,

SRW

joedad

We had a nice discussion not too long ago on that subject. Check it out.

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000058" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000058</a>

The thread is titled, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

My own opinion? "Nothingness" and ex nihilo are fantasy.

joe

[whoops!]

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

Infinity Lover

Phylosofying about nothing is every bit as useless as it sounds. You can't bul(beep!) something out of nothing. What nothing COULD be? Get the (Beep!) out of here!!

Nothing is nothing.

So it isn't an option either.

Life's about choices, but existense has no choice but to exist.
And existence is infinite. Infinity isn't an option either, so good luck rejecting it. Infinity is every option out there.

crocodile deathroll

I am of the view that nothingness is such an extremely unstable equilibrium that is was doomed to fail right from the start. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

How can nothingness last without adding the dimension of "time" which is something.

crocodile deathroll

logansluf

perhaps to better understand the concept it will help to break down the word itself

nothing=no-thing=not something(singular)

all things(plural)&gt; something therefore all things is not something which is equal to nothing

"
I'm interested in what anyone might have to say about "zero ontology," or the nature of "nothingness" (i.e. the nihilo of creation ex-). In what ways has this been explored philosophically?

The oft-quoted remark that the Big Bang singularity resulted from a quantum fluctuation, and that such fluctuations "just happen from time to time", is not particularly satifying. It implies some sort of "existence" out of which a singularity could occur -- not exactly nihilo. Perhaps the common assumptions regarding "nothingness" are flawed . . . leading back to my original question here
"

correct me if im wrong but the way i see it when nothing is refered to it should simply mean the encompassment of all things
so in regards to the big bang theory, it seems more absurd for something to have come from something than from no-thing(which is all things)

this definition of nothing also answers what happens when time is entered into the equation, namely time is already included in all things

ohwilleke

The argument that the Big Bang and the known universe is only one part of a larger thing, and that it began out of something beyond the range of our perception sounds pretty plausible to me.

Syphor

Hello,

In regards to the Big Bang emerging from 'nothingness' I guess I have a slight problem with it. Nothingness by definition is nothing (obviously), whereas by comparison while a vacuum may contain nothing it is still actually something. A vacuum has structure, be it 3 dimensions or more, it is something in which something else could exist inside. Nothingness of course is without structure and dimensionless; while our universe may be expanding into nothing could have it expanded out of nothing?

Of course the universe could well be expanding into a vacuum that perhaps suggests a 'mega verse' of sorts. Still, at some point there must be a 'mother verse' that must have emerged from nothing.

I view nothingness as a hurdle for scientists and non-theists, and an insurmountable problem from theists. While I do not understand or comprehend how something can emerge from nothing (as in nothingness, not a vacuum), the logic of an infinitely and fundamentally complex being emerging from nothing falls apart in my eyes. I believe the universe emerged in chaos and tended toward order based upon the natural laws of the universe such as e, PI etc.

Dexter Cymru

One possible approach is to consider a Zen-derived (I think, or it might be Sufi !), approach and use the concept of No-Thingness. If everything is as ONE (note capitals), then there is no division.

LinuxPup

The problem with the Megaverse theory (many universes), is that it is an unfalsifiable argument. It is impossible to know if this is the case or not, as we cannot naturally obtain information outside of this universe.

logansluf

yes Dexter than is actually the basis of all Zen thought(derived from mainly from Toaists and merely incorporated by Buddhists)

this was actually the point i was trying to get across earlier