Originally posted by fjordIt occurs to me that to say that "a nothingness" might exist in conjunction with the universe, independent of it, is not different really from saying what seems like the opposite: that it doesn't exist. 🙂
Hi Jarno
[b]Indeed, there is no example of "nothing" in the universe, but saying that "nothing" might have a manifestation "outside" the universe is really saying... well... nothing!
Sorry, but that is not what I said. I said ...[text shortened]... de" the universe. [/b]
Were you born like that? 😲
Fjord
[/b]
What would "nothing" that existed independently of the universe be like? Since it would not have even dimensions, how would the state of it not existing outside the universe (i.e. saying that everything in reality, dependent or independent of the universe must always be something) differ from the state of it existing? I seems to me that the whole claim that nothing could exist in any actual, reality-affecting form is self-contradictory.
What was he telling me? That everything with a dimension consists of something without dimensions (nothing or no things)?
I do think that what you learned was a mathematical abstraction that is not ment to imply anything of actual reality, but rather of mathematical "idealisations" of form; I have no objections to the fact that we can conceive of a "nothing", but rather to the claim that our conception of nothing could correspond to anything outside our imaginations. That is what I'm sceptical of.
I'm tempted to say that emptiness is a spacial manifestation of nothing.
Perfect emptiness may be the best approximation of nothing that we can conceive of actually existing - but the very fact of it beeing a "spacial manifestation" pretty much excludes the possiblity that it achieves what it approaches... it is still something.
Were you born like that? 😲
LOL! I don't think so... most probably the reason I don't feel any metaphysical bafflement and awe at the question is a result of thinking about it critically - asking whether the question is really meaningful, whether what it proposes as an option really is one, and coming up with a simple "No.". 🙂 However, I never discount the possiblity though that some information that I don't know, or haven't taken into account could prove me wrong. Most certainly there are things I couldn't get my head around even if I had all the facts. I think that the more we think of the "big questions" the more we become aware of how very little we can truly say that we understand, and that we can't really claim to know much at all. It is just that to me, the whole concept of possible existence of nothing seems to pack very little punch, so to speak.
-Jarno
We cannot imagine a situation wherein there is nothing at all. We can imagine an "empty" space but that is as far as we can go. We cannot imagine that there is no space and we can certainly not imagine there is no time. Therefore the mere existence of something at all appears to me, a being, to be a necessity. However at the same time this necessity is to me the most wonderful and mindboggling miracle there is.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI think you need to get out more! I'm going to the fridge for another beer!
Arguably the most fundamental question of metaphysics is: Why is there something rather than nothing?
I was wondering what other RHP members think of this question on two levels. First, what do you think the answer to the question is, if indeed you think it has any answer at all. Second, what is your psychological response to the question? Awe, fear, ...[text shortened]... tion between psychological reactions to, and logical interpretations of, it.
Thanks,
Aiden
Originally posted by PyrrhoYou are completly correct, this is a problem of Infinates. For a nothing (or rather a void, a lack of anything) to truly exist, there really has to be nothing, anywhere!
It occurs to me that to say that "a nothingness" might exist in conjunction with the universe, independent of it, is not different really from saying what seems like the opposite: that it doesn't exist. 🙂
-Jarno
What i mean is, if the Universe exists, then everything outside it, no matter how empty, is not nothing. It has an entire Universe inside it, no?
🙂¬~
It's interesting to note that mankind has only tackled these problems of infinates and infintesimals in the last 500 years or so. The number 0, didn't even exist as a number in our (western) mathematics, for centuries.
This isn't really in keeping with this thread but i find this so fascinating im gonna put it anyway, shouldn't our callender start at Zero?? Sounds crazy but if u cast your mind back to 31/12/1999, there was a lot of confusion over when the millenium actually began. The Year Jesus was "born" is officially 1AD, even though the man himself was not yet one.
🙄¬~
If we can look back into time using a telescope, then why don't we take a look at the sun a billion years ago? Using super computers, we should be able to precisely determine where it was at that time. Or ten thousand years ago? (This is a trick question, but it answers the basic question about what is real and what is not.)
Is the future real? Do you exist in it? How can you be sure? If you exist there, why not mentally link up with yourself in a trance and talk to yourself? (Same trick question as above. Just seems different.)
Better yet, if you are into esp and meditation, why not get a million man dialogue going with a million of yourselves? Lets say, a half million from your past, you "now" and a half million of your future selfs. You do agree that the past is real, don't you? If it is real, then you are real in that past, right? And we all believe in the future and know we exist there. Right? Hmmmm...
The answer as to why this isn't doable will be found when we link the quantum universe to the einsteinian universe. We do indeed live in "interesting times"... pun intended.
The short answer is that "reality" is much more tricky than can be imagined. It is real only in billionth second (acutally smaller) bursts called "now". All these are stored, after being miraculously kindled from quantum soup, and stored in time and space in what we blithely call our "minds". The concept of mind will probably be the last great mystery. If we ever come to know how it manages the breaking of quadrillions of wave functions in the simple act of deciding to take a breath, we will indeed be at the end of the TOE chain. (Neat pun, again.) And we do 'decide' a million issues each day, each act of "mind" curling the quantum broth into "reality". The only thing we know today is that people who argue "free will" vs. "determinism" are a few hundred years out of date. We have more free will than can be imagined.
Originally posted by Mephisto2Do you mean by this: Is it possible that the self does not exist or is an illusion? And, if so, then reflexive pronouns lose their meaning?
Out of curiosity: could one categorise 'myself' as nothing? If one could, it wouldn't mean much, close to nothing.
One interesting view of the self is that it is a linguistic fiction. Just as the terms "here" and "there", and "now" and "then", only have a meaning when used in context--so that there is no object that objectively corresponds to "here", "there", "now", and "then"--so too do terms like "me" and "you" only have a meaning when used in context--so that there is no object that objectively corresponds to "me" or "you". It is because personal pronouns operate grammatically like other nouns that denote that we are gulled into believing that there are objects for them to denote.
Aiden