Can science explore nothingness? - Page 2

so are you saying that this question posed in this thread is un answerable, that there is actually no such thing as 'nothing' that there has to always be something?

That is correct. As nothing is nothing, it has no physical properties and therefore cannot be explained or explored by any scientific means as science can only be used to explain physical phenomena. So, to answer the original question, "Can science explore nothingness," the answer is No. Our universe is saturated with background radiation from the big bang, light waves, and matter (which is energy, just at a cooler state.) When energy cools, it condenses. In the tinesty fractions of trillionths of a second after the big bang, the energy released had already reached a temperature suitable for forming matter, it was just incredibly..incredibly small. As the universe expanded the temperature continued to fall and as the energy cooled, it condensed further and further until heavier elements began to form and gravity molded them into what we eventually see today. Solar systems, stars, giant clumps of dark matter (matter that emits no light and no radiation) etc. Even in the furthest, darkest reaches of space, you can still see ancient light from stars, which means that those waves of light are hitting you, saturating your space with these light waves..there is no point in space that has no matter and no energy.

I have a strange position on the nature of what is called "nothingness." Now, of course, I am a mystic at heart and, therefore, for me "nothingness" represents the opposite pole of the limits of human comprehension of the external world in terms of three-dimensional space and linear time, which I believe, as Kant did, are mere categories of thought and perception and not actual physical properties of the external world as it truly is (which I beleive is both spaceless and timeless). The other pole is "infinity" which is just as incomprehensible as the concept of "nothingness" (although more acceptable). When thinkers first considered the nature of the universe they decided it must be an "Infinite three-dimensional sphere" because they could not accept the idea the existence of "nothingness" beyond the possible boundaries of finite three-dimensional universe. However, they did not consider the fact that if the universe is actually infinite it cannot possibly have a thre-dimensional form because an infinite universe has no surface and, therefore, no actual shape. In such a universe there can be no center, no boundaries and, therefore, no three-domensional form. I believe the center of the universe extends from with each of our minds from which we can imagine the three perpindicular lines, or dimensions, of space extend outwards because, I also believe, three-dimensional space is merely a category of thought and perception, of our minds. We have this same interesting problem with infinity when we analyze the idea of the infinitely small which, once we think about it logically, we realize seems just as infinite, and incomprehensible, as an infinitely large universe. We have a similar problem when we ponder the infinite, or finite, nature of time. These two poles, 'infinity" and "nothingness," represent those ancient mystical concepts, "All and Nothing (are One)" or "As above, so below." They are the same. It is only the limitations of human comprehension of the external cause by thought and perception in terms of three-dimensional space and linear time that prevent us from recognizing this fact. Well, that's my take on the subject.

Imagine a graph of how many apples there are against the number of days the fruit bowl waits for them. On some days there will be no apples there. And so by definition on this graph we have zero apples. If we flex our brains a bit and look for absolutely nothing then we struggle. Its not infinity or nothing that is the problem but the idea of absolutism, irreversibility, stagnation that we can't grasp.

If we find absolute anything we won't be observing it anyway- in fact no - thing will

I don't think I've posted two posts one after the other before. This is an exception.

I was cutting an onion earlier and the thought came to my head: if there was something in the way when I cut an onion with a knife, at the subatomic scale, it would not cut. Perhaps, there has to be nothing sometimes for the knife to cut : if there was something then it would stop the knife from cutting it much like running into a brick wall. I'm going to sleep on this and think about all this a bit more.

I think I understand your difficulty. Many years ago I attempted to understand what I call "the problem of the infinitely small." I began to wonder about the idea of the "smallest particle of matter" possible. I realized that, even if there was a smallest particle of matter that could be considered indivisible, there still existed a volume of space still measurable as even smaller than the particle in question (assuming, of course, the particle possesses atleast some amount of mass and, therefore, occupies atleast some amount of space) within which something even smaller, if such a thing could be imagined, might possibly fit in. And that "something even smaller," while also still possessing atleast some amount of space and, similarly, occupying atleast some amount of space, also allows for the possibility of a volume of space measurable as even smaller than this "something even smaller" within which something even smaller than this "something even smaller might also fit in, and so and so on, ad infinitum. It's an idea that seems inescapable, as inescapable as the problem of the infinitely large where we are forced to choose between two equally incomprehensible concepts--infinity, where the universe goes on forever, and nothingness, an incomprehensible state of things beyond the boundaries of a finite universe where there is no space, matter or time. I concluded for myself that the problem was not a physical one, but a psychological one, and three-dimensional space (and linear time), as Kant proposed, is a category of thought and perception and not a physical property of the external world. The real world, I believe, is both spaceless and timeless (transcendent) and metaphysical since, it seems, the concept of matter, which possesses no distinguishing physical characteristics, no color, distinctive smell or taste or even touch apart from e "wood" or "stone" that is supposedly composed of it, is just as abstract as the concept of soul or spirit. The real world is both transcendent and metaphysical in my opinion.

I absolutely agree with that and it makes me think of how you quantify a thought or dream or idea etc. etc. or the soul or spirit come to that. And then of course when you are thinking about these concepts what about before the universe or universes existence? Before the big bang or creation which ever way you look at it (its all the same to me) - what was there before -nothing? If nothing then how can something (the universe) come from nothing if nothing is unobservable and unexplorable and unexplainable?

These questions are all vaild. The point to science, is to feel for these questions but also to take steps in answering these questions.

I've thought about the subatomic scale and, going down, through matter, and through what we know so far, I guess what happens is that we come to 'massless spaces', which we can therefore split. But we are not splitting mass as such in an ordinary everyday encounter, we must be 'splitting' forces or perhaps charges. And therefore, there is no such thing as nothing, but it begs the question how do forces be seperated?

The answer of course is that we don't negate forces but we change forces to give something on our appreciative scale that looks like say 2 shapes cut from one shape.

It will do you all a bit of good to try and read "Language, Truth, and Logic" by A.J. Ayers. As an overview, he renounces metaphysics and explains how he believes that it is fundamentally impossible to explain subjects that do not have sense-content. Our language is limited on defining things by attributes and other similar experiences. In other words, if you can't sense "nothing" then you cannot talk about it.

creative thinking. I like.

quote:

---

Diverisity is in unity.

Can science and philosophy explore nothingness?

---

Science has the potential to explore all that there is ... thereby proving the non-existence of nothingness...

which is inconsequential as a conclusion - or cloudy at best... like a firm metaphore... ya' know ~ ?

Of course philosophy is limited by humans using it... up until now... I've always heard it was impossible to concieve of a beginning or think of "nothing"...

[[[[[clang.clang.BONG.!]]]]]

enter the higher beings... with deeper waters than any of us poor attatchment driven pagans can fathom...

oh, by the by... if history proves that you have better thoughts... than another... then that should not be the topic of the reading...

lets see...

I meet a lot of people who are the best...
and when they let me know just how much better they are..
I just ask them to take my job.. and do it..

they should become a millionaire... because they're just that! much better than me... right?

lol!

usually cancels the quibbling so the thoughts can flow...

paz'

Plain and simple science cannot explore nothingness. In order for it to be a scientific question it must be an answerable question. In order for it to be a scientific theory, it must be provable. Therefore, since we can neither test nothingness, nor come to a conclusion of what it truly is, it is merely a matter of philosophy, NOT science.

Since existance is not truly provable, regardless of its seeminly far greater testibility, within our limited ability to do so.

I'm not so sure your point is as accurate or definitive as you make it.

I'm afraid this is a pseudo-problem lent credence by a terminological confusion. For 0 and nothingness are not equivalent. 0 is a mathematical function; its value is heuristic, not ontological (defined as the number with no successor, for thosE who are interested). Nothingness, on the other hand, is a predicate by which we denote an absence of something we would otherwise expect to inhere in an object, or some state of affairs. It functions more like a minus than a 0. So when Sartre said, "Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being", we shouldn't take him to mean, what is absurd, that being is really illusory (a fresh can of worms I know), but rather that certain qualities which we normally take to be fundamental to being aren't in fact there. (Such as a Telos or Essence). However tempting it may be to exalt (or demote) nothingness into everyday use, being fooled, as we invariably are, by the superificial resemblance between the grammar of "there was nothing" and (for example) "there was frost", it behoves us to remember that NOTHING IS NOTHING.

well I never said that existence could be explained by science either. I simply said non-existence could not be. Therefore, I feel that my logic is perfectly justified, and as clear as I believe it to be.