Does "nothingness" exist?

reply to post by googolplex


I know I know. I think this is too hard a topic to comprehend. Its unanswerable. Also with reguards to your creator comment, from who or what did the creator stem? My head hurts.

reply to post by eyesdown


That question itself creates a paradox....

Creator implies creation implies creator implies creation.....so on and so forth....it never stops...

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I think nothingness may occur after several minutes of trying to percieve nothing ness, your head goes pop.

reply to post by eyesdown


I agree....

This stuff boggles the mind and tickles my fancy...it's really intriguing but unfortunately it does a number on my thinker....

Atleast it's better than doing a number on my nerves[like CiR]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Yup it does indeed. It is truely fascinating but something I don't think our human minds were ever made to concieve. Doesn;t mean that we never will though. I have been reading up on Everetts many worlds theory and the science behind it. I gave up and decided it just sounds nice so I'll agree.

Well I want to say this was very good thread, makes you think, this is real cutting edge stuff.
When I was kid and spoke of such things my Parents told me that people who thought of such things would go crazy, it seems they were incorrect, at least I believe they were incorrect.

Mama always said nothingness is as nothingness does, Googolplex Gump

I think nothingness probably does exist. But we change it to another form the very second we observe it. The act of observing changes nothingness to something. Also, I think our brains are wired as such that we can not grasp a real idea of just what nothingness would really look like because if it looked like something it is no longer nothing.

I am not going to do this, LOL this is one that will drive you nuts.

"the whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek (Maya), hiding from itself by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise."
-Alan Watts

I find it ironic that A.W says "hide-and-seek" and that now modern physicists agree that in a "void" there is "something" that "pops" in and out of "existence"....just like HIDE AND SEEK...

From 19:30 to around 21:00 of the following video you can see exactly what I'm talking about...(the entire video is actually quite good...although I disagree without some of the dissenting comments about religion)



A2D

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

If true infinity exist it has no starting point, at least none that could be conceived by man.
Math does not work in nothingness, because there is nothing to add or subtract.

As I said I see everything as a recursive description of all other elements. If you truly follow this and see it to its end you'll understand I'm saying 0 is a type of ∞ and vice versa. Remember I've already given two definitions for 0 (abstract infinity & summation of + & -, there are more, but lets keep this simple). This is very likely why people boggle at the God statement, "I am the alpha and the omega." The way to understand true infinity, as you had called it, or the universal set (though I like to call it recursive ∞), is to observe finite infinity (i.e. a circle).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63d2c577bfa2.png[/atsimg]

Note what happens here: we start with 0, create an infinity, and then end with 0 as the tangent function consumes ∏ as it's final parameter. This all happened over a finite space of less than 4 natural numbers. We can do this process infinitely many times ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d65bdb64756c.gif[/atsimg]

The way I try to think of recursive infinity is an indexing of these "infinities." Expressed in other words ∞_0 indicates Tan[pi/2]. ∞_1 indicates Tan[3*(pi / 2)]. ∞_2 indicates Tan[5 * (pi / 2)]. You get the idea.

Really though this doesn't come close to capturing the true size of recursive infinity because between any two numbers are infinite points. So you have to understand everything, even nothingness itself as being infinitely vast. True abstract infinite nothingness indicates the beginning. True, or recursive, infinity represents all possibilities and probabilities expanding as an n-ary n-spheroid. However for these things to exist they had to exist simultaneously.

So to see a beginning and an end is like trying to pick a starting point on a circle. We can arbitrarily pick one point to indicate infinite nothingness and the same point to indicate recursive infinity as then the end-point over a curved space (i.e. a circle) or 0.

It also helps to understand that numbers fundamentally represent numerical operations. Sounds strange I know, but follow me. Everyone is aware that the numerical identity of multiplication is 1. This is why we can say 6 * 1 = 6 / 1. Likewise a + 0 = a - 0, where 0 is the additive identity. These numbers represent these operations because they fundamentally contain within them these properties. If you doubt this idea of 1 as the multiplicative identity being a special property of not only the operation, but also the number itself then consider the following problem. If we're dealing with all Reals where 1 is removed from the domain then it can be said 2 * 3 ≠ 6 because 6 ≠ 6 since 6 / 6 ≠ 1. Meaning 6 is not a component of itself because 1 is undefined. So unless 1 holds no number holds. Similar logic can be used with 0 as the additive identity.

We can get more abstract: A = A, implies that A represents all real & complex numbers. A ≠ A represents the empty set (implying non-existence), a type of 0.

Now I've rambled on about all this because of your statement:

Math does not work in nothingness, because there is nothing to add or subtract.

The reason A ≠ A is so special is because it allows us to measure nothingness!

Put another way A = A (quantitatively), but this does not necessarily mean A = A (qualitatively) or seen in a different light A ≠ A because A_l ≠ A_r (since the left is a distinctly different element from the right).

To better understand this consider that the numerical identity of the equality operator is any given number 'A' (as elaborated on above). Thus to cancel we remove the A. So in other words if I have, A = A, I can simply state A. So cancellation is performed by removing the left or right-hand equivalent *and* the equality operator.

Evaluating the opposite statement, A ≠ A, simply suggests "non-existence." So cancellation is performed by removing the entire phrase (or stating 0 / the null-set as I suggested earlier 'abstract nothingness').

Another way to think of this is to see that dealing with an inequality on the same constant suggests there's a qualitative difference on the quantitative term. Or put another way A = A_l = A_r = 1. Which is to say the leading terms (A) is equal to 1 between several quantitatively equal objects. The way to distinguish then between them is by their perceptual differences (like one is on the left and another is on the right).

For a concrete understanding of this imagine an element of hydrogen in a 3D volume. Only one instance of hydrogen can occupy a discrete unit of time-space. Even though the properties of two hydrogen atoms are equal they are distinctly different in the sense that they *must* exist as fundamentally different copies _of_ hydrogen. Expressed in quantitative terms we could view hydrogen as 1, like so:

A = 1
A_l = 1
A_r = 1

Where the subscripts, _l and _r, represents say a time-space difference:

l = 2
r = 3

The trick is to find an occasion where quantitatively and using the reflexive principle the operation balances.

A_l / A_r = A_r / A_l (quantitatively) ⇒

1 / 1 = 1 / 1 ⇒ true

To evaluate this qualitatively you look for cancellation of equality on the quantitative term:

A_l / A_r ≠ A_r / A_l ⇒
1 / 1 ≠ 1 / 1 ⇒ false ⇒
[empty set]

Thus we cancel the A_ .

Then to evaluate it qualitatively each components subscript is given a value / name. If the two sides don't balance using subscripts as values then they are not qualitatively the same.

l / r ≠ r / l ⇒

2 / 3 ≠ 3 / 2 ⇒ true

However,

A_l / A_r = A_l / A_r ⇒

l / r = l / r ⇒

2 / 3 = 2 / 3 ⇒ true

So while something can be quantitatively equal it can also not be qualitatively equal.

Thus 1 = 1 and 1 ≠ 1 (or put another way 1 = 0 tells us 1 can no longer be differentiated meaning this type of 1 is a part of the abstract nothingness of the empty-set). Likewise, 2 = 2 (quantitatively) and 2 ≠ 2 (qualitatively), or put another way 2 = 0 (qualitatively, because no other element even if quantitatively 2 is the same as this instance). For those of you with a computer science background just think of 2 = 0 as a sort of a GUID.

So on and so forth. I've taken to calling A ≠ A the Qualitative axiom (so as to not collide with the concept of the irreflexive binary relation)

This axiom allows us to measure nothingness.

At some point I really need to run this idea past somebody with tenure in academia.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

Talk about a math specialist.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
Talk about a math specialist.

As strange as this might sound I suck at math.

However I am good with abstract concepts and symbolic logic.

Howdy, A2D

Well, you got snookered. Your original position was sound

"The burden of proof cannot ONLY be placed on an affirmative claim because "negative" claims do not exist.

But then you opened the door to rebuttal in the next breath:

"Negative" claims are simply claims implying the lack of an "affirmative" ie darkness is the lack of light."

and, were maneuvered onto the hook for an undecidable propostion, whether there can "truly" be "nothingness."

The current state of play on that is that the quantum mechanical vacuum is not nothing, but not exactly something, either.

So, you are not going to decide the question of nothingness, and in the meantime, your opponent has pushed you "off-message," all the while getting away with advocating a restatement of "I'm right until proven otherwise."

My advice to you is to backtrack and focus. Whoever asserts either truth status for a categorical ("yes-or-no") statement has the burden of proving its truth status (true or else false). There is no privileged form of categorical statement.

Not all categorical questions are decidable (there is a theorem to that effect, Godel's), nor or are all categorical questions decidable on demand (is there a largest prime number pair?). Not all questions of categorical form are categorical (is Keira Knightley more beautiful than Scarlett Johansen?). There is no mechanical test for "categorical-ness" (a corollary of Godel's Theorem).

Any statement of the form "I believe that whatever" is self-proving. You are not asserting the truth of the whatever, only that you believe it to be so. You can set out to prove the whatever or not, just as you please.

The one and only "sanction" for a disputant's not meeting his or her burden is dismissal - the refusal of the other party to discuss the matter any further. Dismissal shouldn't be confused with deciding a question, that the unsuccessful disputant is shown to be in error. Instead, the unsuccessful disputant is found not to be worth the trouble of rebutting.

Usually, that is the step where woo-warriors screw up. They lap up Christopher Hitchens' "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof," and hear what they want to hear, that something can be decided without proof.

That, of course, is not only wishful thinking, but outrightly magical thinking. Specifically, the claim that a categorical question can be decided based upon how it is worded, "affirmatively" or "negatively," is spellcraft. It is literally to claim that not is a magic word. Which is woo.

I have issues with Mr Hitchens, but he is an excellent writer. I am sure that he knows the difference between dismiss and decide. Would that more of his admirers had reading comprehension skills commensurate with his writing ability.

Nothing can be decided without proof. Anything can be dismissed.

Ah, so nothingness exists after all: the membership of the set of statements which are decidable without proof .

[edit on 23-12-2009 by eight bits]

Reply to post by eyesdown

It's rather like light contemplating complete darkness or hot contemplating absolute zero IMHO. The thesis cannot understand the antithesis or vice versa if you ask me. We are something contained in a vast perhaps endless something. By our very natures "nothing" becomes "something" when we become aware of it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Xtraeme

Philosophicly, I'd say that "nothing" mathmatically expressed would be a blank peice of paper or black board or etc.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by eight bits


thank you so much eightbits! Your explanation was easy to understand and basically the same as my own understanding(I know that sounds like a predisposed biased but HEY...we all have them)

A2D

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

I've been involved in an on-going discussion involving the existence of "nothingness". It started out as a discussion involving the(IMO) established scientific dogma that the burden of proof is only on a positive claim.

The majority of the post appears to be more focused upon burden of proof argument rather than an inquiry into the existence of something labeled to not exist.

You are confused.

I read this as stating, "I am confused." Here is why:

Me: Concerning physics, NOTHING is actually SOMETHING ie the "nothingness" of space is classified as a "vacuum". Therefore, in relation, your claim of "nothing" is actually a claim of "something".

The vacuum of space is something as there is no pure vacuum where nothing exists. The fabric of space-time itself is described to be something in and of itself in which matter exerts it's presence upon it. So, from your own misunderstanding your attempting to assert that a vacuum is nothing when it really is in fact something.

Me: If non-existence is true, then it EXISTS as "non-existence". Therefore your "non-belief" is a BELIEF in "non-belief".
To elaborate: non-existence is defined as the condition of not existing and therefore it must EXIST in that condition.

If I believe you have a tail with lot's of pink frilly fur, does that belief make it exist? I strongly believe this is true about you and I demand a picture because I think it would kick ass. I do hope you understand the point. Belief or non-belief in anything doesn't make something either exist or not exist.

reply to post by sirnex


Oh sirnex, you always misunderstand me.

The vacuum of space is something as there is no pure vacuum where nothing exists. The fabric of space-time itself is described to be something in and of itself in which matter exerts it's presence upon it. So, from your own misunderstanding your attempting to assert that a vacuum is nothing when it really is in fact something.

If I believe you have a tail with lot's of pink frilly fur, does that belief make it exist? I strongly believe this is true about you and I demand a picture because I think it would kick ass. I do hope you understand the point. Belief or non-belief in anything doesn't make something either exist or not exist.

I agree. That's the whole point I've been trying to establilsh.
Nothing IS something...NOTHING doesn't exist....rather it is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS classified as "something"....

As for belief and nonbelief....I don't think "nonbelief" exists....just as "nothing" doesnt exist.....It's all belief...and yes I agree that belief doesn't make something true...therefore, but "non"belief and belief(the same thing mind you) are subjectible to the burden of proof.

To say that a negative claim is not subjectible to the burden of proof is to bear the benefit of assumption. Regarding science, nothing should be given the benefit of the doubt(or assumption) without FIRST AND FOREMOST, being subjected to testing and/or proofing...

The vacuum statement only came because that is the CLOSEST imaginable thing I could use to describe a "nothing"....How else am I supposed to convey my message without completely "pudding-izing"(that term is not to be used without written consent from Agree2Disagree Inc.) these individuals' minds?

A2D

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Zeptepi

 

So we agree that "nothingness" is actually "something". That's a very good start from where I left off on the other discussion. They could not even agree with that statement.

Now, this may be where it gets a little tricky.

Does "nothingness" apply to polarity? ie does "nothingness" equate to a "negative" claim?

Is a "negative" claim actually a "positive" claim in the same sense that "nothing" is actually "something"...?

Nothingness is the exact point between negative and positive

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Oh sirnex, you always misunderstand me.

I disagree wholeheartedly. You are attempting to equate space/vacuum as 'nothingness' and then using that defined nothingness to in turn 'prove' that nothingness exists as something. Simply not doable. Nothingness is described as far as I know or am concerned as literally nothing. The reason we can't describe it or conceive of it is simply because we've never experienced it nor can ever experience it.

As for belief and nonbelief....I don't think "nonbelief" exists....just as "nothing" doesnt exist.....It's all belief...and yes I agree that belief doesn't make something true...therefore, but "non"belief and belief(the same thing mind you) are subjectible to the burden of proof.

To say that a negative claim is not subjectible to the burden of proof is to bear the benefit of assumption. Regarding science, nothing should be given the benefit of the doubt(or assumption) without FIRST AND FOREMOST, being subjected to testing and/or proofing...

If you took the time to notice, I never discussed any aspect of burden of proof, so essentially this whole part of the post is meaningless to me. The title of the thread ask's 'Does "nothingness" exist?" and this is what I replied to.

The vacuum statement only came because that is the CLOSEST imaginable thing I could use to describe a "nothing"....How else am I supposed to convey my message without completely "pudding-izing"(that term is not to be used without written consent from Agree2Disagree Inc.) these individuals' minds?

Well, you certainly don't go about describing it by likening it to something that it is not. The best way I can describe nothingness is the complete lack of anything. This invariably includes any concepts of nothingness existing as a state of existence as that would be something indeed, but we are talking about proper nothingness are we not?

reply to post by sirnex


If nothingness cannot be experienced, then we cannot rationally say that it exists.