Talk About "Nothing"
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.
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.
-
Comment by Loop Johnny on November 15, 2010 at 2:26pm -
we would instantly know
It takes some computer processing to calculate the outcome.
To know you have to observe and 'reverse engineer' reality. Is like having the final product, and figuring out how it works or how it came to be. Basically, understanding it.
I don't think math can ever be complete. Look at the entity we call "infinite". Get the picture?
-
Comment by Jaume on November 15, 2010 at 2:49pm -
"If something is, then nothing isn't, so there's no reason to talk about it (and there's no reason to talk about something either, since it already is, and you can do nothing about it.)"
This is what a Zen buddhist monk would have to say about the 'nothing' problem. A better learned monk would reply with a riddle, like "Why did nothing cross the road?", but don't expect him/her to give an answer to the riddle as well - except, if you're lucky, an elliptic one, like "The answer is the question". At this point it's up to you to figure out that 'nothing' is analogous to 'chicken', and you'll be stuck in a chicken/egg problem (which is somewhat implied by the answer.) As you see, Zen riddles are better left unanswered, especially if you're allergic to aspirin.
Bottom line: never ask a buddhist monk - they know nothing about chickens.
-
Comment by Loop Johnny on November 15, 2010 at 3:03pm
-
@Jaume
-
Comment by Mark Strange on November 15, 2010 at 3:06pm -
Once the problem is solved and it reaches our brains and our brains have a general grasp of what was calculated then we would know instantly.
-
Comment by Mark Strange on November 15, 2010 at 3:07pm
-
Lol
-
Comment by Kirk Holden on November 16, 2010 at 5:32pm -
Thank the technium for this answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
At present we could say that anything smaller that the Plank length is the line of demarcation between what we understand as not nothing and its opposite - nothing. The energy needed to falsify our conjectures about why there is 'something' (all this stuff) and 'not something' goes right up to that reduced scale.
Your prosaic use of simple counting numbers does not even work well at the level of mechanical and electrical engineering where we make very well formed artifacts called nanotubes. Nanotubes are many levels of abstraction from what we don't yet understand.
\
You could use bananas and suitcases and get equally invalid myth. Myth is the precursor to a conjecture which leads to theory. When you have promoted your best intuition to differential equations you could have a much shorter and better informed question.
Comment
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Richard E. Robertson 1 hour ago. 543 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist