Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ion · 07-24-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

...
If nothing exists-show me.

In fact is the third law of thermodynamics (not the first about conservation of energy, not the second about entropy), stating that zero physicality, or nothing, doesn't exist, thus cannot be attained.

That's the current position in science.

What was before the Big Bang in not known, and the Big Bang is a theory still in the works by a lot.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

fando · 07-24-2002, 11:21 AM

IntenSity,

As Automaton noted, your question is not well formed enough for someone studying the natural sciences to answer. However, I think that the philosophers in the Philosophy forum have a large enough vocabulary to provide an "answer" that might confuse you enough to be acceptable.

Angrbotha · 07-24-2002, 03:54 PM

IntenSity and GeoTheo:

I'm not sure if i really understand this.. you want proof of 'nothing'?

How much of 'nothing' does there have to be? 'Nothing' exists if there is a single iota of space without a thing in it.

Also, it is much harder to prove that Anything exists than nothing. Just look at anything in the room. What is it made of? Molecules, most likely. and what is between the molecules?
And the Molecules are made of? Atoms. What is between the atoms? inside an atom is a nucleus and an electron cloud... What is between the electrons and protons and neutrons? really, if you think about it, everything is made up of a lot of nothing.

Theli · 07-25-2002, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
Automaton,
So things have always existed? If so, is the big bang a fallacy?

Ex Nihilo.

Can something come from nothing?
And if it can, should nothing be considered somehing?

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

Theli · 07-25-2002, 05:04 AM

Black Moses...

Quote:

If nothing exists then it is not understadable by our feeble minds,nothing is accessible by our minds in their most elementary forms[we feel it].

You're not an apologist, are you?
I can hear a David Mathews behind those words.
"Everthing is incomprehensible"
"I feel that I am right"

Theli · 07-25-2002, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Angrbotha:

How much of 'nothing' does there have to be? 'Nothing' exists if there is a single iota of space without a thing in it.

Also, it is much harder to prove that Anything exists than nothing. Just look at anything in the room. What is it made of? Molecules, most likely. and what is between the molecules?
And the Molecules are made of? Atoms. What is between the atoms? inside an atom is a nucleus and an electron cloud... What is between the electrons and protons and neutrons? really, if you think about it, everything is made up of a lot of nothing.

For you to say that nothing exists (or more accuratly - "is") you must confine it to a space.
Just because the particle is empty doesn't mean it is "made out of nothing".
I would say that 'Nothing' (not confined to a space) cannot be, as there is neither any time (duration) nor 'something' for it to relate to. The term would be useless.

Ted Hoffman · 07-25-2002, 05:29 AM

Shadowy Man
No, certainly not. There is much more than the Galaxy. We can see millions of galaxies. I think the post on which you are commenting was correct in using the term "visible universe."
visible spectrum makes sense because there is the part of the (light)spectrum that is invisible. "Unknown universe" might be more acceptable compared to "invisible universe".
The fact that we dont know of it does NOT mean it is invisible. How can we

Ion
In fact is the third law of thermodynamics (not the first about conservation of energy, not the second about entropy), stating that zero physicality, or nothing, doesn't exist, thus cannot be attained.
If it cant be attained, that means the universe is not 15 billion years old. The big bang model of nucleosynthesis starts from virtually no particles/ elements.
If we have always had matter, even before the big bang, then the universe has always existed and DID NOT arise from the big bang.

That's the current position in science.
I like the authoritative tone of finality in that sentence.

What was before the Big Bang in not known, and the Big Bang is a theory still in the works by a lot.
If its impossible to have nothing, then even the big bang did not get nothing but got SOMETHING, thus matter did NOT arise from the big bang. It means even before the big bang, there was time and space.
Thus TIME is NOT a property of the Universe.

fando
As Automaton noted, your question is not well formed enough for someone studying the natural sciences to answer. However, I think that the philosophers in the Philosophy forum have a large enough vocabulary to provide an "answer" that might confuse you enough to be acceptable.
Oh, that one would confuse me. That will be the day. Where is Ender the philosopher? Maybe he can conjure up some neo-kantian response?

Angrbotha
I'm not sure if i really understand this.. you want proof of 'nothing'?
I do not need proof of nothing. I just wwould like to undestand whether it is possible to have nothing existing.

How much of 'nothing' does there have to be? 'Nothing' exists if there is a single iota of space without a thing in it.
Such a space does not seem to exist. If it existed, it would be a vaccum and air would rush into it, or more precisely it would suck air into itself. In essence, we would end up with a black hole of some sort.

Also, it is much harder to prove that Anything exists than nothing. Just look at anything in the room. What is it made of? Molecules, most likely. and what is between the molecules?
There is air between the molecules. Sometimes, there is no space between the molecules.

And the Molecules are made of? Atoms. What is between the atoms? inside an atom is a nucleus and an electron cloud... What is between the electrons and protons and neutrons? really, if you think about it, everything is made up of a lot of nothing.
Looking at this hydrogen atom:

Remember 6.02 x 10^23 atoms of Hydrogen make up one mole, which weighs 1.01 grams. Between the electron and the nucleus is some charge, depending on the charge state of the electron. Therefore, I do NOT believe there is nothing between even the electrons themselves.

Ted Hoffman · 07-25-2002, 05:36 AM

Theli,
Hi, Long time.
If by ex-nihilo, you were referring to vaccum fluctuations, It hasnt come to my knowledge that scientists have been able to create perfect vaccums, so I dispute the ex-nihilo part.

You may be right in saying the term nothing is meaningless. If that is the case, can we categorise the term nothing along terms like God, dragons, mermaids - in the sense that they dont exist?

Shadowy Man · 07-25-2002, 05:46 AM

IntenSity:

What the term "visible universe" means is that part of the universe from which we currently have any ability of detecting light. Assuming that the visible universe has a finite age, the visible universe is finite, even though the entire universe need not be. It has nothing to do with the "visible" spectrum. Besides "invisible" light like X-rays and radio waves can still be detected even though they aren't "visible".

Also, the view of the atom as presented by Angrbotha, and drawn by IntenSity, is not really the way any physicists really think of atoms anymore. It's not fully appropriate to think of tiny electrons orbiting tiny nuclei with (relatively) huge spaces in between. QM has done away with that view.

Ted Hoffman · 07-25-2002, 07:16 AM

Shadowy man,
Thanks for the clarification on the "visible universe". My argument was that it has a connotation that an invisible universe exixts.

About the electron cloud thingy and the Quantum Model of an atom, it makes it even more unlikely for NOTHING to exist given the Uncertainty principle because at a subatomic level, one cant pinpoint somewhere and say, "ah, the electron has left this point and so there is NOTHING here" (aah, the collapse of the wave function)
And atoms retain at least one quanta of energy even when cooled to absolute zero (-273 degrees Celcius). So, with the eternal flux and the way nothing is ever stable(on a subatomic level)and is never at rest, one CAN NOT locate nothing.
But if the eternal flux is a property of the universe, what could have made nothing "unstable" enough to cause the big bang?
There were no baryons, no Mesons, no leptons and other elementary particles.

How could there be change without lack of a stasis?

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

07-25-2002, 07:16 AM	#20
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Shadowy man, Thanks for the clarification on the "visible universe". My argument was that it has a connotation that an invisible universe exixts. About the electron cloud thingy and the Quantum Model of an atom, it makes it even more unlikely for NOTHING to exist given the Uncertainty principle because at a subatomic level, one cant pinpoint somewhere and say, "ah, the electron has left this point and so there is NOTHING here" (aah, the collapse of the wave function) And atoms retain at least one quanta of energy even when cooled to absolute zero (-273 degrees Celcius). So, with the eternal flux and the way nothing is ever stable(on a subatomic level)and is never at rest, one CAN NOT locate nothing. But if the eternal flux is a property of the universe, what could have made nothing "unstable" enough to cause the big bang? There were no baryons, no Mesons, no leptons and other elementary particles. How could there be change without lack of a stasis? [ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 11:21 AM	#12
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	IntenSity, As Automaton noted, your question is not well formed enough for someone studying the natural sciences to answer. However, I think that the philosophers in the Philosophy forum have a large enough vocabulary to provide an "answer" that might confuse you enough to be acceptable.

07-24-2002, 03:54 PM	#13
Angrbotha New Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Alaska Posts: 3	IntenSity and GeoTheo: I'm not sure if i really understand this.. you want proof of 'nothing'? How much of 'nothing' does there have to be? 'Nothing' exists if there is a single iota of space without a thing in it. Also, it is much harder to prove that Anything exists than nothing. Just look at anything in the room. What is it made of? Molecules, most likely. and what is between the molecules? And the Molecules are made of? Atoms. What is between the atoms? inside an atom is a nucleus and an electron cloud... What is between the electrons and protons and neutrons? really, if you think about it, everything is made up of a lot of nothing.

07-25-2002, 05:29 AM	#17
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Shadowy Man No, certainly not. There is much more than the Galaxy. We can see millions of galaxies. I think the post on which you are commenting was correct in using the term "visible universe." visible spectrum makes sense because there is the part of the (light)spectrum that is invisible. "Unknown universe" might be more acceptable compared to "invisible universe". The fact that we dont know of it does NOT mean it is invisible. How can we Ion In fact is the third law of thermodynamics (not the first about conservation of energy, not the second about entropy), stating that zero physicality, or nothing, doesn't exist, thus cannot be attained. If it cant be attained, that means the universe is not 15 billion years old. The big bang model of nucleosynthesis starts from virtually no particles/ elements. If we have always had matter, even before the big bang, then the universe has always existed and DID NOT arise from the big bang. That's the current position in science. I like the authoritative tone of finality in that sentence. What was before the Big Bang in not known, and the Big Bang is a theory still in the works by a lot. If its impossible to have nothing, then even the big bang did not get nothing but got SOMETHING, thus matter did NOT arise from the big bang. It means even before the big bang, there was time and space. Thus TIME is NOT a property of the Universe. fando As Automaton noted, your question is not well formed enough for someone studying the natural sciences to answer. However, I think that the philosophers in the Philosophy forum have a large enough vocabulary to provide an "answer" that might confuse you enough to be acceptable. Oh, that one would confuse me. That will be the day. Where is Ender the philosopher? Maybe he can conjure up some neo-kantian response? Angrbotha I'm not sure if i really understand this.. you want proof of 'nothing'? I do not need proof of nothing. I just wwould like to undestand whether it is possible to have nothing existing. How much of 'nothing' does there have to be? 'Nothing' exists if there is a single iota of space without a thing in it. Such a space does not seem to exist. If it existed, it would be a vaccum and air would rush into it, or more precisely it would suck air into itself. In essence, we would end up with a black hole of some sort. Also, it is much harder to prove that Anything exists than nothing. Just look at anything in the room. What is it made of? Molecules, most likely. and what is between the molecules? There is air between the molecules. Sometimes, there is no space between the molecules. And the Molecules are made of? Atoms. What is between the atoms? inside an atom is a nucleus and an electron cloud... What is between the electrons and protons and neutrons? really, if you think about it, everything is made up of a lot of nothing. Looking at this hydrogen atom: Remember 6.02 x 10^23 atoms of Hydrogen make up one mole, which weighs 1.01 grams. Between the electron and the nucleus is some charge, depending on the charge state of the electron. Therefore, I do NOT believe there is nothing between even the electrons themselves.

07-25-2002, 05:36 AM	#18
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Theli, Hi, Long time. If by ex-nihilo, you were referring to vaccum fluctuations, It hasnt come to my knowledge that scientists have been able to create perfect vaccums, so I dispute the ex-nihilo part. You may be right in saying the term nothing is meaningless. If that is the case, can we categorise the term nothing along terms like God, dragons, mermaids - in the sense that they dont exist?

07-25-2002, 05:46 AM	#19
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	IntenSity: What the term "visible universe" means is that part of the universe from which we currently have any ability of detecting light. Assuming that the visible universe has a finite age, the visible universe is finite, even though the entire universe need not be. It has nothing to do with the "visible" spectrum. Besides "invisible" light like X-rays and radio waves can still be detected even though they aren't "visible". Also, the view of the atom as presented by Angrbotha, and drawn by IntenSity, is not really the way any physicists really think of atoms anymore. It's not fully appropriate to think of tiny electrons orbiting tiny nuclei with (relatively) huge spaces in between. QM has done away with that view.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.