What is "Nothing?" This question sounds like an oxymoron, because "Is" can only be said about something that exist. Nothing can not exist unless it is "Something" which, in my understanding of the word, it isn't. but when I hear the words "Something from Nothing" I get the sense that I am wrong and “Nothing” simply means the absence of a particular something, or equal to the word Zero.

So again, “What is Nothing?”

Understanding the word might give me better understanding of how something can come from nothing. I have always thought that nothing begets nothing as 0 + 0 = 0. But if nothing is something then its Something + Something = Even More Something, which Is then easily understood.

If nothing is indeed something then why does one even use the confusing word? Why not use a different word?

Also, what was before the Big Bang?

I have been told that the Big Bang is the beginning of time and that “Before” is void because “Before” is a concept of time. If this is true and time did not exist then how did the big bang even have a chance to bang? If before did not exist, logically, neither does after. The universe as it was during the big bang would have remained that way forever if time did not exist.

This can be fixed if we say time always existed what do you think.

Ps. I know that there are a lot of scientist who see my reasoning and are working on the problem.

Views: 23

Tags: Bang, Big, Logic, Nothing, Question, Reason, Time

Comment by Mark Strange on November 15, 2010 at 11:10am
lol ^ Nothing.
Comment by Mark Strange on November 15, 2010 at 11:42am
I've been thinking hard on "What is Nothing" and realized that nothing is the two words "No Thing" stuck together. Things are anything that has mass and occupies volume or "Matter" so "Nothing" or "No Thing" is "No Matter." I've been taught wrong. Nothing is not Zero Anything but instead 0 Matter or pure energy... whatever that is.
Comment by Radu Andreiu on November 15, 2010 at 11:54am
"0 + 0 = 0. But if nothing is something then its Something + Something = Even More Something, which Is then easily understood."

5 + 7 + (-12) = 0 too. [sin(x)]^2+[cos(x)]^2-1 = 0 for any x. Many extremely complex functions end up being 0. In fact, there are an infinity of functions, an infinite set of them being infinitely complex, all of which can be equal to zero in different conditions or even in any conditions. That being said, the fact that 0 equals all these functions means that 0 IS all of these functions. Therefore, whenever you refer to 0, you are actually referring to every single function that equals 0, even though these functions contain a lot of something.

As an example, integral f(x) dx from x=-c to c is equal to 0 no matter what number is c, as long as f(x) is an even function. That means that f(-x) = f(x) for any x. The mentioned integral is 0 for all the functions that have that property, and there is an infinity of them.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that nothing (0) is not what we think. It "contains" everything that, in the end, equals nothing. Like the total energy of our universe, which is a nice, round 0. I don't actually think we could have nothing, because that nothing is filled with lots of things; with everything.
Comment by Mark Strange on November 15, 2010 at 12:57pm
0 = The absence of a particular something. "There are 0 apples on the table," does not state how many oranges there are, just that there are no apples. "Nothing" according to the way I have thought about it for so long = 0 Everything and that just can not be.
Comment by Radu Andreiu on November 15, 2010 at 1:36pm
Equations are basically "something equals nothing". We fancy it up by using functions and parameters, but that's the main idea. The whole freaking math is based on something being the same thing with nothing. Well, that's not exactly right, but if you add some things together, they can result in nothing. Like the examples in my earlier post. As functions actually describe real things, we can have a function describing our universe (the laws of Nature) or having included in it the function describing it, and still be equal with 0. We can have functions representing our brains and still be equal to 0. I don't know why nothing wouldn't include something, or even everything, as mathematically that's the way it is. Actually, our world seems to be 0 or something close to it. We have matter (6) and antimatter (-6), which, added up, annihilate each other and result in 0 matter. Of course, they are transformed in energy, but then again, the energy of our universe is still 0.

I just can't see why we should make that clear distinction between nothing and something, as long as 0 is never just 0. 0 is everything that you can imagine and even what you can't. I don't know, maybe math is wrong, or maybe I just don't get it, but it will take more than the extremely fallible general intuition that nothing couldn't possibly contain something, to convince me otherwise. A mathematical demonstration would probably do the trick for me.
Comment by Loop Johnny on November 15, 2010 at 1:45pm
May I enter?

From a point of view of a software developer, nothing is a negation of something. It is like saying not-thing. Not a thing. Nothing is everything that is excluded from something. If you have a ball inside a box, and the box is the maximum domain in which you can work with ( hence thinking inside the box ), not-ball is everything inside the box that is NOT the ball.

Nothing is strongly related to how you define the "thing", or something. Nothing, by definition, is not something. It's nothing ( mind bending ).
Comment by Loop Johnny on November 15, 2010 at 1:48pm
Also, 0 is an abstract concept. It involves a number that is infinitely small, without going negative. Those are numbers. Reality is different. In reality we are working with "things" ( hence noTHING, and someTHING ). The "thing" term is ill defined.
Comment by Mark Strange on November 15, 2010 at 2:05pm
The old saying, "The sum is greater than the parts," comes to mind, but then again of course that's true. If part X = 1 and Part Y =2 then the sum is 3 parts. And 3 parts of course is greater then 2 parts or 1 parts. lol

When a religious person uses the word nothing they tent to use it meaning "Absolutely Nothing" and I think most people see it in that light. When a scientist uses the word that's not what they mean, but people hear it that way, and it confuses them.

The word mean's two different things to people and I think we should clarify what we mean by it, but to do that every time, would be time consuming. So I say avoid using the word all together.
Comment by Loop Johnny on November 15, 2010 at 2:09pm
The thing is different in "The sum is greater than the parts". Abstractly, the sum of it's parts is equal to the whole ( X + Y = sum ). In reality, when you work with complex objects with different properties and interactions, an educated Nobel Prize winner is more valuable than it's organs laid out on a table.

A practical nothing that we tend to refer to is the void of space. Which is false, because void is not nothing, it's space ( and time as well, space-time ).

Words are invented by us to use them.
Comment by Mark Strange on November 15, 2010 at 2:21pm
The problem is we do not and probably can not know all the parts of something, If we did we would instantly know why things work the way they do. The more parts we find the better our math. Math, as it is, is incomplete. Our knowledge of the universe is incomplete and we should always go under the basic assumption that we can know more. For if there is more to know, then we will never give up.
I believe existence exist and will always do so.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist


Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service