well probalby not technically science, but the question i am more or less posing would be scientific in nature.

higher beings, such that at the 'top', you usually get 'god'. Now alot of religions/ideals/fantasies/sci-fi seems to have placed 'god' as the creation side, and on a few occassions, they place 'god' as 'god of All and Nothing'.

comming to my question, if basing reality off part of this scenerio, which would probably fall in the 'all' category, could we more or less define 'Nothing'? if so, what would be a general consensus of 'Nothing' be then? (thinking that general circular argument still precides)

Nothing would be the absence of something.

Lear: Speak.
Cordelia: Nothing, my lord.
Lear: Nothing?
Cordelia: Nothing.
Lear: Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.

~э(x)

pretty simple

nothing

no thing

duh

Does such a thing exist? Is space a thing?

You cannot observe nothing. We can say it cannot be proven to exist.

One could say a vacuum is nothing-- but then again, a vacuum is a thing.

A vacuum is a thing, as it can be observed. In addition, it is never completely empty, so even then it is not really a vacuum. Thus a vacuum is not nothing. If there is nothing outside the universe, then that means that the universe is everything, and thus nothing exists. What the hell is going on here? I can imagine oblivion in two parts, but never one, and it is apparently impossible to describe.

Nothing in common terms would be the lack of everything percieved as important and/or expected at a given location at a given time. Not too hard.

No; nothing is the lack of anything. Screw perception.

The problem with defining nothing is the word itself, there is no 'nothing' there is always something, but because humans define things which are tangible, hence the word.

I'd say if there even IS a nothing, humans just couldn't grasp it. But a lack of time, space and matter, yes.

There are tow parts of "nothing" which can be examined; however, when I was trying to do this, I was unable to do both at the same time.

1, you don't exist.

2, there are no dimensions, spatial or temporal.

The second one is the easiest of the two to imagine.

IMO this is the kind of stuff people talk about when they are stoned.

"Like, if NOTHING exists, then its SOMETHING, so its not NOTHING maaaaaan"

Yes, but nothing doesn't exist, that's the point. What's Parmenides' quote again? (Edit: What is is, what is not, is not.)

This post has been edited by zaragosa: Sep 13 2005, 08:14 PM

It's a pretty easy concept most of the time. Nothing doesn't exist, because everything exists. The sentence "Nothing exists out of time" can be interpreted in two grammatically distinct ways: Either there isn't anything that exists out of time, or that which exists out of time is nothing -- which doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as "a vacuum" unless you're talking about the household cleaning appliance. Saying "that is a vacuum" is a shorthand and poorly worded way of describing a location.

The correct (and anal-retentive) way of saying "that is a vacuum" is to say, "the pressure at that location in space is a vacuum of xxx PSI/Pa/Torr/whatever units". "Vacuum" when referring to pressure is an adjective, not a noun.

Speaking scientifically, perhaps.

However, in laymen's terms...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vacuum&db;=%2A

Ve beleeve in nufing Labaoooski

JAA

That very important comment aside, what is the significance of this question? Nothing is the lack of that which we speak. "There is nothing which could survive that" or "There is nothing which would indicate that our intelligence is flawed", ect.

Nothing is merely a word which can be applied to a variety of concepts.

'nothing' is what Western Science learned from the "sand-bunnies".

You DO realize that that doesn't reall ymatter, right?

what?

"'nothing' is what Western Science learned from the "sand-bunnies"."

What was the point of saying that?

just as a matter of interest, what do you *think* i meant by it? i'm not trying to be funny, there IS a specific meaning i intend here, and i will explain it, but i'm just interested in what *you* think i mean by it.


obviously, if it was satan, ryan lame, or spice/BM then the meaning would require as much time as any of their posts, ie, ironically, nothing. What you are probably wondering is why *i* would say such a thing... go on, guess :P

Obviously you're simply trolling (and doing a shit-poor job of it). Otherwise you would have said that "the 'zero' was first defined by Muslim scholars".


...and you're wrong, in that the concept of a 'zero' is not the same as the concept of a null set or a vacuum.

heh, notice someone's been catching up with reading... :D

"trolling" - no, more of a honeyed trap, although i must admit i am surprised that it was you and jeffers who got caught out. :huh:





however 'zero' and 'nothingness' have a fair bit in common, no...? :rolleyes:

Zero is the number quantifying the nothing. /empiricist

And QWOT essentially got it right; you said it solely for the purposes of trolling. For future reference, the term is not sand bunnies, but sand niggers.

The Zero was created first by Indian scholars anyway.

presumably youre telling qwot that? i only said we had "learned it from them", not that they had discovered it. :shades:



says who? if i want to be racist, i'll use whatever term i want. Especially if i'm mocking racists.


....and who's put a gerbil up *your* asse jeffers old boy? :color: