• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nothingness

M

Maxist

Active Member
I was thinking last night about things, and thought about what it would be like in nothingness. I then came to the conclusion that since even in an empty universe there is Mathematics (There is the null set, and there is one thing, so you have the number one, then you have the number two from those two things and so on. With numbers you can have arithmetic, with arithmetic you can draw algebra, and from the calculous and statistics and so on. You would then think that there would be no geometry, however, the current geometry that we have is all theory, there can never really be a square, or a circle, or even a line! So since there is mathematics what is stopping physics). So I am now attempting to refine nothing based physics, any thoughts?
 
SoliDeoGloria

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
Maxist said:
I was thinking last night about things, and thought about what it would be like in nothingness. I then came to the conclusion that since even in an empty universe there is Mathematics (There is the null set, and there is one thing, so you have the number one, then you have the number two from those two things and so on. With numbers you can have arithmetic, with arithmetic you can draw algebra, and from the calculous and statistics and so on. You would then think that there would be no geometry, however, the current geometry that we have is all theory, there can never really be a square, or a circle, or even a line! So since there is mathematics what is stopping physics). So I am now attempting to refine nothing based physics, any thoughts?
Click to expand...

This just sounds like silly logic to me. Isn't mathematics something? What about atoms? I guess your definition of nothing is too dependant on empirical observation. That's alright though. I was under the impression that the words something and nothingness were direct antonyms but the definitions don't even seem to make much sense in that respect.

*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Nothingness \Noth"ing*ness\, n.
1. Nihility; nonexistence.
[1913 Webster]
2. The state of being of no value; a thing of no value.
[1913 Webster]

*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Something \Some"thing\, n.
1. Anything unknown, undetermined, or not specifically
designated; a certain indefinite thing; an indeterminate
or unknown event; an unspecified task, work, or thing.
[1913 Webster]
There is something in the wind. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]
The whole world has something to do, something to
talk of, something to wish for, and something to be
employed about. --Pope.
[1913 Webster]
Something attemped, something done,
Has earned a night's repose. --Longfellow.
[1913 Webster]
2. A part; a portion, more or less; an indefinite quantity or
degree; a little.
[1913 Webster]
Something yet of doubt remains. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]
Something of it arises from our infant state. --I.
Watts.
[1913 Webster]
3. A person or thing importance.
[1913 Webster]
If a man thinketh himself to be something, when he
is nothing, he deceiveth himself. --Gal. vi. 3.
[1913 Webster]

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 
M

Maxist

Active Member
On the contrary mathematics is nothing. You are thinking about physical application, mathematics is pure theory.
 
SoliDeoGloria

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
Maxist said:
On the contrary mathematics is nothing. You are thinking about physical application, mathematics is pure theory.
Click to expand...

Then it is as I stated before,
SoliDeoGloria said:
I guess your definition of nothing is too dependant on empirical observation.
Click to expand...

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 
Halcyon

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Maxist said:
On the contrary mathematics is nothing. You are thinking about physical application, mathematics is pure theory.
Click to expand...
Well, a theory is technically something. It requires thought, a theory cannot exist without thought.

Pure and total nothingness is pretty much impossible to describe, because there is no such form of existance within our reality.
 
Fluffy

Fluffy

A fool
I was thinking last night about things, and thought about what it would be like in nothingness. I then came to the conclusion that since even in an empty universe there is Mathematics (There is the null set, and there is one thing, so you have the number one, then you have the number two from those two things and so on. With numbers you can have arithmetic, with arithmetic you can draw algebra, and from the calculous and statistics and so on. You would then think that there would be no geometry, however, the current geometry that we have is all theory, there can never really be a square, or a circle, or even a line! So since there is mathematics what is stopping physics). So I am now attempting to refine nothing based physics, any thoughts?
Click to expand...

That is an incorrect definition of nothingness. If there was a complete lack of everything, then the universe itself could not exist. The same goes to mathematics. Its easier to think about if one understands that the phrase "If nothing exists..." unavoidably objectifies "nothing", thereby turning it into something. We cannot talk about "nothing" except as the "abscence of everything" (ie as a negative instead of a positive) since it cannot exist (its existence would create a paradox).
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
*digs around for old post*

Ah ha!

Runt said:
In Ancient Greece there was a famous debate between two schools of thought—the Eleatic School and the Atomist School—about the concept of non-Being. The Eleatics held that Non-Being cannot possibly exist. The Atomists, on the other hand, held that Non-Being exists.

Brief Overview of the Eleatic vs Atomist Debate:

Parmenides founded the Eleatic School in the 5th century B.C.E. when he established the obvious fact that is impossible to study that which does not exist because it is not around to be examined.

Gorgias took the opposite stance shortly afterwards, claiming that “non-being exists” because it can be thought about. However, he also said that being thought about is no criterion of Being, thereby stripping his own argument of validity.

At this point Parmenides should have won the argument and the two schools should have dissolved. However, when Parmenides’ disciple Melissus readdressed the issue in his book “Concerning Nature or What Is”, he subtually changed the definition of Non-Being (the state of something that does not exist) to Nothingness (an emptiness lacking in characteristics), and in doing so unintentionally founded the Atomist School.

However, before the debate surrounding this new concept began, Gorgias’ already poorly formulated claim was thrown into the trash bin once and for all in the 5th century B.C.E. Just as Gorgias himself had said, Plato asserted that thinking about something was not enough to prove its existence. He added that one must also have knowledge of Non-Being to be able to assess whether or not it existed, and because Non-Being could not be examined, no individual could have knowledge of it.

Now the new concept took hold. Leucippus jumped onto the Atomist bandwagon around the same time that Plato was sacking Gorgias’ claim. Ignoring the Non-Being issue altogether, he instead argued that Nothingness (emptiness without characteristics) exists in the universe, stating, “The All includes the empty as well as the full” (a concept now embraced by modern quantum physics).

Leucippus’ student, Democritus, further developed the Atomist argument, temporarily moving away from the concept of Nothingness to the concept of human consciousness. He was skeptical about humanity’s ability to perceive reality correctly, saying, “We know nothing accurately in reality, but only as it changes according to the bodily condition, and the constitution of those things that flow upon the body and impinge upon it” and therefore “Either there is no truth or it is concealed from us”. Indirectly, his claim refuted Plato’s claim that knowledge of Being proved its existence.

From this point on the debate itself is not particularly useful to us, because the Eleatics continued arguing about whether or not Non-Being could exist while the Atomists were discussing a completely different concept--Nothingness--and thus no real conclusions were made since they weren't even arguing about the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top