Defined
In order to define nothing let me define what I call "anti-substance". This is not anti-matter. This is simply any concept that is solely defined as the absence of something real. The word nothing is a anti-substance. The word dark is as well since it is only defined as the absence of light. With that the word nothing is defined as "the absence of exsistence".

Word Play
One of the major problems is the English language. The way we talk about these "anti-substances" makes them seem to be more than they are.....which is only concept.
"There is nothing out there."
This statement causes a problem for some because the word "is" comes before "nothing" making it seem as if "nothing" is exsisting. What is meant is "There is no exsistence in that area".
Make sure that your arguements are not based on word play.

Measurement
Another problem is that in concept we would be able to say that this are from here to here has nothing in it. This statement, while being true, could mislead people in much the same way as word play. The reality is is that the nothing is not being measured since it has nothing to measure. What is being measured is the edge of exsistence. Take thsi example:
There is a room with four walls, floor, and a cieling. Everything is taken out. No I mean everything (this is a hypothetical example so it is asuming it is possible to remove EVERYTHING). We now have no exsistence inside the room. However we can tell you how big that area of nothing is and where it is but only becasue we know where the walls are. Saying that the nothing is 8 meters long is a misleading statement. What is really meant is that the walls are 8 meters apart. You see you are measuring the end of exsistence, not the none exsistence.

Is There a Nothing?
Some people may agree with this definition, but say that it is great in concept but is not real. Some believe that there cannot be a nothing. Take the Big Bang Theory. If our universe is expanding and is possible to expand indefinitley, what is it expanding into? If the universe was at point "A" yesterday but at point "B" today, what was at point "B" yesterday? The answer is nothing. The edge of the universe expanding is the edge of exsistence. If anything exsists beyond that point then it is part of our universe. So, there can be a "nothing". Now if it is within our universe is something unproven right now. I could find it to be possible either way. Since we know there can be a nothing, it's entirely possible it can be within our universe in little or large pockets as well. Or, it could just be outside the universe.

Summary
Now that we've despensed with confusing word play, defined "anti-substances" and "nothing". We have also proven using the BB theory that there is a area that has no exsistence inside it. Please before arguing a point go back and make sure that that point had not been covered yet. Also, please do not argue against obvious word plays of my own. If I said the word "exsists" along with "nothing", you know that I was not attaching the property of exsistence to the "nothing".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ishop:
Word Play
One of the major problems is the English language. The way we talk about these "anti-substances" makes them seem to be more than they are.....which is only concept.
"There is nothing out there."
This statement causes a problem for some because the word "is" comes before "nothing" making it seem as if "nothing" is exsisting. What is meant is "There is no exsistence in that area".
Make sure that your arguements are not based on word play.

---

I would say a better way to phrase "There is nothing out there" would be: "There is NOT a THING out there." In fact, replacing the word "nothing" with the phrase "not a thing" solves a lot fo the word-play problems.

The main issue here is that people are making things way more complicated than they really are - and they are WAY over-analyzing things (I guess that makes them feel smart). The basic thing people need to do is look plainly and simply at the words presented and what they mean. In other words, "nothing" means what you thought it meant when you were 6 years old - NOTHING - period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ishop:
....We have also proven using the BB theory that there is a area that has no exsistence inside it.

---

False, because the area itself would exist.

And once again, no, the big bang does not have the universe expanding into a pre-existing volume of space.

You said:

quote:

---

False, because the area itself would exist.

---

Go back and ACTUALLY read my post, the section that is entitled "Measurement".

You also said:

quote:

---

And once again, no, the big bang does not have the universe expanding into a pre-existing volume of space.

---

You used the words "pre-exsisting" and "volume". Nothing as I defined it is not "pre-exsisting" and "volume" is a unit of measurement. I said it was expanding into non exsistence. Your statement further proves you did not read my post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ishop:

You used the words "pre-exsisting" and "volume". Nothing as I defined it is not "pre-exsisting" and "volume" is a unit of measurement. I said it was expanding into non exsistence. Your statement further proves you did not read my post.

---

Actually, I did read your post, and you ARE reifying nothing. However, this is just a problem with intuition, but a closer look will reveal the errors. To comment on your quote:

quote:

---

....There is a room with four walls, floor, and a cieling. Everything is taken out. No I mean everything (this is a hypothetical example so it is asuming it is possible to remove EVERYTHING). We now have no exsistence inside the room

---

You cannot have an inside of the room if there was no existence. You cannot have a "there" unless "there" exists. If it were somehow possible to destroy a vacuum, then you would end up with the bricks of the house, but no inside. This is hard to grasp because of intuition, but mathematically the walls of the house are defined by their own geometry only. Only if you include the existence of inside space could you logically say there is an inside at all.

quote:

---

Saying that the nothing is 8 meters long is a misleading statement. What is really meant is that the walls are 8 meters apart. You see you are measuring the end of exsistence, not the none exsistence.

---

You CANNOT measure something that does not exist. In the case of walls, there would literally be no area seperating them. The frame of the wall itself is what sustains it, not any volume inside. The same applies to a closed, hyperbolic universe. If you were somehow able to look at such a universe from the outside, it would appear to be a hollow sphere. But there literally is no "inside" the speak of, as the universe is competely defined by the curved surface it is.

I can see how such examples of connected objects could cause confusion. But I don't see how you could make the mistake of viewing the vacuum itself that say.

quote:

---

If our universe is expanding and is possible to expand indefinitley, what is it expanding into? If the universe was at point "A" yesterday but at point "B" today, what was at point "B" yesterday?

---

The problem here is that you are assuming the universe is expanding into a pre-existing space, otherwise there would be no point A or point B for the universe to expand to. Points only have existence within the universe itself, and do not have any external definition. As such, there is no place which the universe expands into.

quote:

---

Since we know there can be a nothing, it's entirely possible it can be within our universe in little or large pockets as well. Or, it could just be outside the universe.

---

No, if matter was seperated by nothing, it would not be seperated by anything at all, and would be touching. The volume of space exists just as much as anything else. If you're going to call it nothing, you might as well call matter and energy nothing as well.

It's plain and simple. If there is no existing volume of space, you cannot measure anything.

Eh said:

quote:

---

You cannot have an inside of the room if there was no existence. You cannot have a "there" unless "there" exists. If it were somehow possible to destroy a vacuum, then you would end up with the bricks of the house, but no inside. This is hard to grasp because of intuition, but mathematically the walls of the house are defined by their own geometry only. Only if you include the existence of inside space could you logically say there is an inside at all.

---

Again this falls under word play. You are picking the word "there" apart. You know what I mean, but you want to go deeper and try an find error by saying there is no there if there is nothing. The "there" again is only defined by non exsistence. If there are two walls apart with ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING in between you are measuring the distance between the two walls to determine an area of nothing. In otherwords the property being measured belongs to that which exsists (walls) not the nothing. There is no property applied to the nothing as it cannot have property. You are simply confused with word play.

You Also Said:

quote:

---

You CANNOT measure something that does not exist. In the case of walls, there would literally be no area seperating them. The frame of the wall itself is what sustains it, not any volume inside. The same applies to a closed, hyperbolic universe. If you were somehow able to look at such a universe from the outside, it would appear to be a hollow sphere. But there literally is no "inside" the speak of, as the universe is competely defined by the curved surface it is.

---

Again this is what I was saying. You cannot measure something that does not exsist. Please go again and re-reread the post if you are still confused. You are not measuring the nothing, you are measuring properties of the surrounding things that exsist.

You said:

quote:

---

The problem here is that you are assuming the universe is expanding into a pre-existing space, otherwise there would be no point A or point B for the universe to expand to. Points only have existence within the universe itself, and do not have any external definition. As such, there is no place which the universe expands into.

---

What you are describing is not expansion. To define expansion means to spread from one point to another. Your idea of expansion in NO WAY fits what expansion means. I think you are getting reality mixed with concept. Nothingness is a concept. Placing points on a map is a concept.

You finally said:

quote:

---

No, if matter was seperated by nothing, it would not be seperated by anything at all, and would be touching. The volume of space exists just as much as anything else. If you're going to call it nothing, you might as well call matter and energy nothing as well.

It's plain and simple. If there is no existing volume of space, you cannot measure anything.

---

I think that you think I am mistaking the volume of space for nothing. I know that there are things in space that fill it: light, particles, energy, ect. This is not what I mean. When I say nothing I really do mean nothing. This reminds me of going to burger king and ordering a cheesburger and getting a burger....when I say cheese I really DO MEAN CHEESE! Reread DTStrain's post. You are a victim of this.

One more idea for you to answer. If everything (AND I DO MEAN EVERYTHING THAT EXSIST) suddenly became water, would it be H2O infinity? Of course not. You cannot have water for infinity. So what else would be out there? Nothing would be. NOTHING.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ishop:

Again this falls under word play. You are picking the word "there" apart. You know what I mean, but you want to go deeper and try an find error by saying there is no there if there is nothing.

---

No, there word there means place, and a place is volume of space. Now I can see how a conversation like this can become a matter of semantics, but let's just focus on this comment you made:

...We have also proven using the BB theory that there is a area that has no exsistence inside it.

This is absolutely false, and as impossible as a circle square, as you cannot have such an area. If you agree with that, then there is "nothing" left to discuss.

quote:

---

The "there" again is only defined by non exsistence.

---

See above.

quote:

---

If there are two walls apart with ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING in between you are measuring the distance between the two walls to determine an area of nothing. In otherwords the property being measured belongs to that which exsists (walls) not the nothing. There is no property applied to the nothing as it cannot have property. You are simply confused with word play.

---

This is a matter of geometry. There is no actual distance between the walls, unless there is space in between. If there was no space, as in the case of a hyper-surface, you could only measure the properties of the outside wall itself. Distance between would have no meaning.

quote:

---

Again this is what I was saying. You cannot measure something that does not exsist. Please go again and re-reread the post if you are still confused. You are not measuring the nothing, you are measuring properties of the surrounding things that exsist.

---

See above.

quote:

---

What you are describing is not expansion. To define expansion means to spread from one point to another. Your idea of expansion in NO WAY fits what expansion means. I think you are getting reality mixed with concept. Nothingness is a concept. Placing points on a map is a concept.

---

You can deny the reality of the expanding universe, but that won't change definitions. The distance between points in flat space increases. That is the expansion of the universe, and has nothing to do with any external reference points. You can verify that with any cosmologist.

quote:

---

I think that you think I am mistaking the volume of space for nothing. I know that there are things in space that fill it: light, particles, energy, ect. This is not what I mean. When I say nothing I really do mean nothing. This reminds me of going to burger king and ordering a cheesburger and getting a burger....when I say cheese I really DO MEAN CHEESE! Reread DTStrain's post. You are a victim of this.

---

No, I don't mean that. Even space completely empty of matter can be mathematically defined. It's still something.

quote:

---

One more idea for you to answer. If everything (AND I DO MEAN EVERYTHING THAT EXSIST) suddenly became water, would it be H2O infinity? Of course not. You cannot have water for infinity. So what else would be out there? Nothing would be. NOTHING.

---

Uhh, if a finite universe changed into water, you would then have a finite universe of water. So what? The universe would still not be embeded in external space. An infinite universe converted to water, would likewise become an infinite sea of, well water.

Now the statement "nothing would be" is a negative, which means there would NOT be anything else. I'm sure you're aware of this, but that means that the statement there is a area that has no exsistence inside it is incorrect.

quote:

---

This is completely frustrating. You are incompassed in word play. You cannot get past the limits of the english language and you do not understand one concept I have tried to convey.

---

No, it's basic geometry, not word play.

quote:

---

Your idea of expansion is ridiculous. What you describe is not expansion, just movement in a confined space.

---

Space between points increasing IS the definition of the expanding universe in cosmology, whether you like it or not.

quote:

---

You describe the universe and finite....this is not consistent with BB yet you argue using it.

---

Wow, cosmologists would sure be shocked to learn the big bang is not compatible with a finite universe. Hint: You don't know what you're talking about.

quote:

---

Your arguements are either completely illogical or just word play. You don't get it.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Every thread I go to that barely mentions the word "nothing" ends up dead shortly afterward becasue the whole thread goes up in an uproar over what is "nothing" and does it exsist and if so then wouldn't that make it something. And my personal favorite....cant explain it....must be a paradox. This post is to finally define nothing.

---

Ahhh, yet another thread about "nothing" in order to end the endless debate over "nothing"!

quote:

---

Word Play
One of the major problems is the English language. The way we talk about these "anti-substances" makes them seem to be more than they are.....which is only concept.
"There is nothing out there."
This statement causes a problem for some because the word "is" comes before "nothing" making it seem as if "nothing" is exsisting. What is meant is "There is no exsistence in that area".
Make sure that your arguements are not based on word play.

---

OK, then please provide clear rules of semantics so we know what is and is not word play. All I see you doing is claiming everyone else is playing word games whenever they point out your arguments either contradict themselves or observation.

quote:

---

The main issue here is that people are making things way more complicated than they really are - and they are WAY over-analyzing things (I guess that makes them feel smart). The basic thing people need to do is look plainly and simply at the words presented and what they mean. In other words, "nothing" means what you thought it meant when you were 6 years old - NOTHING - period.

---

Perhaps you are not analyzing them enough. Again, put up or shut up. Break out a serious set of semantic rules and logical rules by which to base a discussion on and abide by those rules. Otherwise, the only thing I see happening is you slamming people over "nothing".

The problem with setting rules for word play is that those rules have to be spelled out and are subject to word play themselves. The simple way to avoid word play is to listen to what my concept is, not if i used the word "area" instead of "space". Its okay to correct it if it makes more sense that way, but not to argue against it as if that's what I meant when a person knows full well what my intention was. Here's an example from Eh's first post:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ishop:
....We have also proven using the BB theory that there is a area that has no exsistence inside it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

False, because the area itself would exist.

And once again, no, the big bang does not have the universe expanding into a pre-existing volume of space.

---

Obviously I did not mean area as it means in mathmatical terms. I meant an area (measured like the way that I explain measuring "nothing" in my first post) that does not contain anything that exsist. He then attaches the words pre-exsisting and volume to my word area....which is not what was meant. Instead of debating the issue he is word playing. Picking out specific words and twisting the intent on which they were meant. I do not think he is doing it on purpose and he is not the only one who does it. But it has to be reconized.

quote:

---

Sigh, this is why a FAQ about space and cosmology would be useful.

---

There are plenty of them out there, but this discussion goes beyond cosmology into the rhelm of philosophy and theology which often contradict accepted scientific theory.

quote:

---

The only reason I get upset is because he is arguing points that have already been covered as if I did not cover them.

---

He is arguing the same points because you are arguing the same points. Repetition does not make them more valid and getting upset about that simple fact of life does not help either.

quote:

---

By the way, if the universe does not collapse but continues expanding it will do so indefinitley....that is infinity.

---

Yes, again with the infinity thing. Mathematics and logic can use infinities and paradoxes in a great number of ways, they are wonderful concepts. However, there is no actual number called "infinity" in mathematics. All mathematics does is attempt to approach infinity in persuit of more finite goals.

Like this concept of "nothing" you are attempting to manipulate, infinity and paradoxes are literally magical concepts. They are as slippery conceptually as anything and can be shown in countless ways to produce whatever logical conclusion you could possibly desire. What is more, any such magical notions cannot be disproven. All that we can do is demonstrate their self-referential and self-contradictory characteristics and, if we are lucky, demonstrate how they contradict scientific observation and theory.

I am certain you are sincere in believing infinity, nothingness, or whatever are ultimately rational concepts, but the bottom line is they are as magical as you can get. Using your concept of nothing, as Eh has taken pains to point out, you could have space without volume, etc. Sure, there are countless mysteries and contradictions concerning physical reality, but most scientists and philosophers prefer to minimize these rather than maximize them. Unless your idea of nothing can produce meaningful logical results and make predictions other more minimized theories do, it is worthless except for possibly personal purposes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eh:
No, if matter was seperated by nothing, it would not be seperated by anything at all, and would be touching. The volume of space exists just as much as anything else. If you're going to call it nothing, you might as well call matter and energy nothing as well.

---

No, a volume of space does not "exist just as much as anything else". That is why it is space - because not a thing is there. It is a concept in our minds - a measurement. There is not a physical object or objects present.

What then is the difference between an area full of atoms, and one not? If we were to use your definition of "nothing" then there would be no circumstance in which the word could ever be practically applied. You have relegated an entire word into meaninglessness by over-analyzing it.

If I ask a 3rd grader to tell me what nothing is, he will give the correct answer. If there are no physical particles in an area, then there is nothing there - THAT is plain and simple.

If you call "space" or "areas" SOMETHING, then the word "nothing" need not exist. It does exist, and for it to be useful as a word, there must be some cases in which it applies. Like I said, what you thought "nothing" was when you were a 3rd grader is what "nothing is" - anything more is over-analyzing, wordplay, and trying to be a big-shot philosopher without saying anything meaningful.

If we later discover that there are "eureka-tons" or some other particle or substance in areas we previously thought contained nothing, then this would be fine. We would say that "there IS something there after all". But this would not change the fact that, if we took out the "eureka-tons" then there would be nothing there.

Stop over analyzing words and just use them plainly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DT Strain:

No, a volume of space does not "exist just as much as anything else". That is why it is space - because not a thing is there. It is a concept in our minds - a measurement. There is not a physical object or objects present.

---

If the space didn't exist, atoms would not be seperated by anything at all. But in modern physics, "space" is just another name for the gravitational field, and it just as physical as anything else.

quote:

---

What then is the difference between an area full of atoms, and one not?

---

In terms of geometry, the difference is curvature. A region of empty space is flat, while a region with matter has curvature. So there is not much difference between empty and full in this case.

quote:

---

If we were to use your definition of "nothing" then there would be no circumstance in which the word could ever be practically applied. You have relegated an entire word into meaninglessness by over-analyzing it.

---

I would agree to that - there is no practical application to apply "nothing" to the real world. That is because the word is a negative and has it's use. We can say things like "nothing is older than 13 billion years", or "nothing is bigger than X" and so on. Now if you want to define "things" as solid matter, you can call a vacuum nothing. But there is little difference in modern physics, it seems like an extra word we don't need to use.

quote:

---

If I ask a 3rd grader to tell me what nothing is, he will give the correct answer. If there are no physical particles in an area, then there is nothing there - THAT is plain and simple.

---

But I'm sure you have moved beyond the intuition and reasoning of a 3rd grader, no? The real world is not as simple as our intuition says it is.

An example is: Does it make much sense to say nothingness is expanding?

quote:

---

If you call "space" or "areas" SOMETHING, then the word "nothing" need not exist. It does exist, and for it to be useful as a word, there must be some cases in which it applies. Like I said, what you thought "nothing" was when you were a 3rd grader is what "nothing is" - anything more is over-analyzing, wordplay, and trying to be a big-shot philosopher without saying anything meaningful.

---

"Nothing" has a proper use in the english language. Even so, with english being ambiguous as it is, you can call it nothing. I don't have a problem with that. But to say there exists a place where there is no existence is a blatent contradiction.

quote:

---

If we later discover that there are "eureka-tons" or some other particle or substance in areas we previously thought contained nothing, then this would be fine. We would say that "there IS something there after all". But this would not change the fact that, if we took out the "eureka-tons" then there would be nothing there.

Stop over analyzing words and just use them plainly.

---

I'm sure you're aware that there is no such thing as "empty" space in this universe, as QM forbids it. Mathematically though, empty space would merely be flat space, which does not seem to hold any less ontological status than curved (matter) space.

you said:

quote:

---

But to say there exists a place where there is no existence is a blatent contradiction.

---

Please tell me you can go beyond the english language into concept and see that you are just picking words out and taking them for litteral use when you KNOW they were meant as concept.

wuliheron, I'm sure you must know that using the word "magic" does not valididate any claims you have. I suggest you don't use that particular word otherwise someone may come back with "word play" and degrade your arguement. Also I seem to notice a trend to your replies here and other places (maybe they are just to me lol). You seem to always argue your point but then in the last paragraph talk about how useless it is to argue whatever is being argued. This is a forum on philosophy, nothing is useless to argue.....its fun. :) And please no one pick out the word "nothing" in the last sentence lol.

quote:

---

wuliheron, I'm sure you must know that using the word "magic" does not valididate any claims you have. I suggest you don't use that particular word otherwise someone may come back with "word play" and degrade your arguement.

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOL..............

You are the ones arguing about nothing. I use the word magic here quite deliberately. Ya'll are throwing the word nothing around like a little kid waving a wand and reciting Presto Esto! as though it will make something happen. Despite all the rational arguments, despite the scientific consensus, etc. you persist and adamently refuse to accept the obvious fact that the concept of nothing is not the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Like a real life stage magician, you can use the concept of nothing to argue endlessly in circles and support whatever views you have on anything. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, slight of hand and decoys. Might as well replace the word nothing in this entire thread with GOD or Magic or Infinity or whatever. Semantically it will make no difference whatsoever.

quote:

---

Also I seem to notice a trend to your replies here and other places (maybe they are just to me lol). You seem to always argue your point but then in the last paragraph talk about how useless it is to argue whatever is being argued. This is a forum on philosophy, nothing is useless to argue.....its fun. :) And please no one pick out the word "nothing" in the last sentence lol.

---

If you prefer, I'll just start substituting the word magic for nothing. In which case you just said:

quote:

---

This is a forum on philosophy, Magic is useless to argue.....its fun. :) And please no one pick out the word "Magic" in the last sentence lol

---

–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–

Extremes in politics are dangerous and should be avoided.

Remaing neutral on all subjects is an extreme.