Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Is "nothing-ness" possible?

Dark Grapefruit wrote:

Nothing (zero) and infinity have to exist, at least as mathematical concepts, in order for our understanding of maths not to contradict itself. e.g. without zero at the centre of the number line, there could be no concept of negative numbers. So I think nothing can exist in the same way the number 1 exists- as a concept applied to a number with a certain property. Sorry if that sounds like mumbo-jumbo. To be honest most math sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me as well.

But math is an abstract, man-made concept. It doesn't show anything about a physical nothingnesss.

EDIT: And Noid, one of my favorite questions is, "Would there be a Universe if we weren't here to see it?"

Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote:

EDIT: And Noid, one of my favorite questions is, "Would there be a Universe if we weren't here to see it?"

I believe so...but I believe that it is possible there are other universe in which we do not exist.

But what will really burst your bubble is, what would there be if nothing ever did happen, and the universe never was created?

Or never came into existence, depending on your view of the universe's conception. The world of science generally agrees that our universe is indeed finite--about 13.5 billion years old, I believe. There is the Big Crunch theory, which could be used to create a perpetually growing and shrinking universe--one which explodes, grows, stops growing, shrinks, and collapses on itself before repeating the cycle once again. If that's the case, then the universe could theoretically have been in place for forever.

I mean, the universe can't have always existed, it had to start somewhere.
And it can't just keep on existing, either.
But, yes, there was nothingness at some point.
But also, to have nothing, I don't think there can be time either, because if there is nothing, time doesn't exist.

SEAN'D! wrote:

Well, according to the laws of relativity, you can't have time without space. So indeed, nothing can't even have time. But that also means that though finite, our universe has "always" existed, because there was no space before our universe's creation, there was also no time. So there is no "before" the Big Bang, because without time, there's no such thing as "before" and "after."

Ooong. My head...

If we can comprehend nothing, does that make it something because we can focus our thoughts on it?

Well, nobody ever had to say the nothingness was large.

Wasn't me who said math was man-made. I think I heard someone else say it because someone come up with "if there's zero, then there has to be nothing".

Don't shoot the messenger.

Indigo Kitsune wrote:

Wasn't me who said math was man-made. I think I heard someone else say it because someone come up with "if there's zero, then there has to be nothing".

Don't shoot the messenger.

In my opinion, zero is more of a thing that you say. It doesn't imply, because you can't have zero. It is just there. But you can have zero of something, but not everything.

Did he sell eggs? wrote:

Indigo Kitsune wrote:

Wasn't me who said math was man-made. I think I heard someone else say it because someone come up with "if there's zero, then there has to be nothing".

Don't shoot the messenger.

In my opinion, zero is more of a thing that you say. It doesn't imply, because you can't have zero. It is just there. But you can have zero of something, but not everything.

Well, techincally, if the something you are reffering to is everything, then you do, in fact, have zero of everything. But the idea behind nothingness is that there is nothing at all.

Step 1: take our universe.

Step 2: remove all the mass and energy

Step 3: That's nothing, right there.

It's an impossible thing for us to do, but a universe of nothing does not break any laws of physics, and if something does not break a law of physics, then it is possible.

And I think this is an endless argument. I really don't think anyone will give in.

Did he sell eggs? wrote:

And I think this is an endless argument. I really don't think anyone will give in.

But man, is it sure fun to see peoples thoughts on the matter.

That still doesn't make me think. Because I still don't get how you can have that nothing with that without breaking an unbreakable law.

Step 1: take our universe.

Step 2: remove all the mass and energy

Step 3: That's nothing, right there.

It's an impossible thing for us to do, but a universe of nothing does not break any laws of physics, and if something does not break a law of physics, then it is possible.

bwave wrote:

Physically, yes...but the query raised was merely is "nothingness" possible. I suppose we have to define first whether this is physical nothingness or philosophical nothingness. Philosophically speaking, I still say nothingness is impossible, because to conceive an idea of true nothingness in our minds means to give it a thought, to label it, to ponder it--once it has that, it has something (even if only a label), making it no longer nothing.

And you know, in order to have nothing, we must define "something." What is "something?" If something has mass, we usually assume it is a something, but is it? Could I say my computer with nothing? Could I say that I am nothing? Words are such arbritrary things...

Math is not a man-made thing. Math is, to quote galileo, "The language of nature". Math would exist even if it was not for human interaction with it. Humans are just another chemical system in the universe.

There could never be an absence of math, because in any condition, zero, and infinity could still exist.

Author:	Dark Grapefruit [ Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:11 am ]
Post subject:
Ju Ju Master wrote: Dark Grapefruit wrote: Nothing (zero) and infinity have to exist, at least as mathematical concepts, in order for our understanding of maths not to contradict itself. e.g. without zero at the centre of the number line, there could be no concept of negative numbers. So I think nothing can exist in the same way the number 1 exists- as a concept applied to a number with a certain property. Sorry if that sounds like mumbo-jumbo. To be honest most math sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me as well. But math is an abstract, man-made concept. It doesn't show anything about a physical nothingnesss. "Physical nothingness?" An oxymoron. Physical means pertaining to real objects- matter and energy. Nothing is the absence of such matter and energy. You wouldn't argue that math tells us nothing about a physical number 1, because there is no such thing. You can have 1 object, but it's the concept that math tells us about. To try and conclude: Is nothingness possible to exist? Yes. Is that existence a physical, tangible one? Of course not, it's nothing. edit: Oh, and thanks Teenybopper for reminding me that energy fields permeate a vacuum. I don't think you're going to find a "nothingness" within our universe as long as it has energy.

Author:	Ju Ju Master [ Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:30 am ]
Post subject:
It was the best word I could use. There is no word for "real but intangible", which is exactly what nothingness is.

Author:	Dark Grapefruit [ Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:39 am ]
Post subject:
k then. But then I'd say that is exactly what math tells us about: real but intangible things.

Author:	Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:56 am ]
Post subject:
Well, getting all English-major-y, the word "concept" is applied to anything that is a noun but has no physical existance. EDIT: And Noid, one of my favorite questions is, "Would there be a Universe if we weren't here to see it?"

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote: EDIT: And Noid, one of my favorite questions is, "Would there be a Universe if we weren't here to see it?" I believe so...but I believe that it is possible there are other universes in which we do not exist.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Is "nothing-ness" possible? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10452	Page 3 of 4

Author:	SEAN'D! [ Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, there had to be nothing at some point, didn't there? I mean, the universe can't have always existed, it had to start somewhere. And it can't just keep on existing, either. But, yes, there was nothingness at some point. But also, to have nothing, I don't think there can be time either, because if there is nothing, time doesn't exist. But what will really burst your bubble is, what would there be if nothing ever did happen, and the universe never was created?

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:
SEAN'D! wrote: But what will really burst your bubble is, what would there be if nothing ever did happen, and the universe never was created? Or never came into existence, depending on your view of the universe's conception. The world of science generally agrees that our universe is indeed finite--about 13.5 billion years old, I believe. There is the Big Crunch theory, which could be used to create a perpetually growing and shrinking universe--one which explodes, grows, stops growing, shrinks, and collapses on itself before repeating the cycle once again. If that's the case, then the universe could theoretically have been in place for forever.

Author:	Neo [ Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: Or never came into existence, depending on your view of the universe's conception. The world of science generally agrees that our universe is indeed finite--about 13.5 billion years old, I believe. There is the Big Crunch theory, which could be used to create a perpetually growing and shrinking universe--one which explodes, grows, stops growing, shrinks, and collapses on itself before repeating the cycle once again. If that's the case, then the universe could theoretically have been in place for forever. But there's not enough matter in the universe (to the best estimate) to cause a crunch, so the big crunch theory isn't very credible.

Author:	Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:
SEAN'D! wrote: I mean, the universe can't have always existed, it had to start somewhere. And it can't just keep on existing, either. But, yes, there was nothingness at some point. But also, to have nothing, I don't think there can be time either, because if there is nothing, time doesn't exist. Well, according to the laws of relativity, you can't have time without space. So indeed, nothing can't even have time. But that also means that though finite, our universe has "always" existed, because there was no space before our universe's creation, there was also no time. So there is no "before" the Big Bang, because without time, there's no such thing as "before" and "after." Ooong. My head...

Author:	SEAN'D! [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:16 am ]
Post subject:
Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote: SEAN'D! wrote: I mean, the universe can't have always existed, it had to start somewhere. And it can't just keep on existing, either. But, yes, there was nothingness at some point. But also, to have nothing, I don't think there can be time either, because if there is nothing, time doesn't exist. Well, according to the laws of relativity, you can't have time without space. So indeed, nothing can't even have time. But that also means that though finite, our universe has "always" existed, because there was no space before our universe's creation, there was also no time. So there is no "before" the Big Bang, because without time, there's no such thing as "before" and "after." Ooong. My head... Oh, I understand now... Thanks for the brain-hurty assisstance, Cee Tee!

Author:	bwave [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:09 am ]
Post subject:
At the present time, it is impossible, within the universe, to experience a total nothingness, because it would break the law of conservation of matter and energy, as well as the law of conservation of momentum (If the mass disappeared, then the equation would be imbalanced. Code: (m1*v1i)+(m2+v2i)=(m1v1f)+(m2v2f) If nothingness was achieved, then there would be no final velocity for any object, so the right side of the equation would be 0, which is imbalanced. Moving on, I believe that your stance on nothingness depends almost entirely on your believe in the creation of the universe. If you believe the big bang theory, then you might believe that nothing existed before it, but you then have unbalanced physical equations. If you believe that all objects and forces are affected by the physical laws (Determinism), then you most likely believe in either a recurring universe, like the theory PMG mentioned, or one of the other many other cycle-based theories, or you believe in intelligent design. In this case, you do not believe that nothingness exists, but you do not rule out the possibility that it could exist in a hypothetical environment. 'Nothingness' is theoretically possible, but as I mentioned before, it isnt possible for us to experience it. To answer your question, did he sell eggs, not-color would have the appearance of being black if a human were to actually look at it. Why? Color is a simplified way of referring to the light wavelength being reflected from or generated by the object. In a perfect vaccum, with no mass or energy, there would be not only no objects with which to relect light, but no light to be reflected. Want to see some proof that black is the 'not-color you were thinking about? Look up at the sky on a clear night, at that space between the stars. That is nothingness, sans the absence of energy. The law of conservation of mass says that no matter may be created or destroyed. In nothingness, there is no mass, so this is not an issue. The law of conservation of energy says the same thing, but about energy, so just subtitute "mass" for "energy" in the paragraph above. The law of conservation of motion would work in a perfect vaccum, because there is no mass, therefore both sides of the equation are zero, which constitues balance. Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote: If we can comprehend nothing, does that make it something because we can focus our thoughts on it? No. Giving nothing a label (we choose the label "nothing") does not affect it's value in any way, so it is still nothing. Also, if there was nothing (remember, that can only happen in a theoretical environment), there would be no people, and therefore, no one to give it a label, and no one would be able to focus their thoughts on it.

Author:	Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, nobody ever had to say the nothingness was large. Couldn't it be theoretically possible for there to be a small space that the mass an energy was simply "shoved out of" to somewhere else? I don't know if this is mechanically possible, but simply as a theoretical notion. Incidentally, giving something a label isn't necessarily a passive act. At least not from the stance of a linguist such as myself. In linguistics study, especially the study of how we accquire language, it's been found that we human beings cannot come to understand something unless we CAN assign a label to it, and by giving a name to something, we create a concrete "thing." We establish "it" in our minds. If we can't name something, or at least describe it in a series of similar words, it effectively doesn't exist to us. So if we give something a name, we are in effect "making" something. At the very least, we're creating a mental entity. Not quite about nothingness, but a linguist would disagree with you about whether or not a label "changes" the value of something, and so I did. I still sort of think that a nothingness would be something we couldn't even properly think about...

Author:	Indigo Kitsune [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:46 am ]
Post subject:
I'm just wondering here, just puzzling. How in the wide green and blue world did a poll about 'nothing', the concept of something not being there, turn into freakin' rocket science and such? Zero=nothing. Plain and simple. If you don't like math, tough cookies. Math is everwhere. Of course man made it. But if you look at nature, there's numbers everywhere. So in a sense, nothing is a real thing. We just can't see nothing because well, it's nothing. Some things are just not meant to be understood.

Author:	bwave [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:55 am ]
Post subject:
Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote: Well, nobody ever had to say the nothingness was large. But since there is no edge of the universe, the nothingness would be infinite. And the labels dont change the value. If there was zero mass and energy in the universe, then those numbers wouldnt be affected by calling it 'nothing'. It's not like giving it a name will change the values (Mathematical, not linguistic). Also, the fact remains that if there was 'nothingness', there would be no humans, and therefore noone would be able to give it a label. Labels are only there for the sake of our benefit. Our awareness of a physical condition does not affect or change that physical condition.

Page 3 of 4	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Indigo Kitsune [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:02 am ]
Post subject:
I find this a good example of how the human brain works. It's completely mysterious and I know for a fact that this discussion will probably go on forever. Because we each have our thoughts on what nothing is. I have done stated my thought on what it is. I am a firm believer that there is such a thing as nothing. And none of your all's scientific mumbo-jumbo will change my mind. But I'm willing to hear more on the subject and see if anyone can prove that nothing is real or not. And quite honestly, don't you all think it's kind of funny that your using science, a human made concept of things, to prove something. When in doubt, some of you said earlier that you couldn't use math to prove or disprove the reality of nothing. Just because it's man-made. So, what's the difference in math and science? Also, chew on this. If there was no math, there'd be no science.

Author:	bwave [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:16 am ]
Post subject:
Math is not a man-made thing. Math is, to quote galileo, "The language of nature". Math would exist even if it was not for human interaction with it. Humans are just another chemical system in the universe. There could never be an absence of math, because in any condition, zero, and infinity could still exist.

Author:	Did he sell eggs? [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:26 am ]
Post subject:
Indigo Kitsune wrote: Wasn't me who said math was man-made. I think I heard someone else say it because someone come up with "if there's zero, then there has to be nothing". Don't shoot the messenger. In my opinion, zero is more of a thing that you say. It doesn't imply, because you can't have zero. It is just there. But you can have zero of something, but not everything.

Author:	bwave [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:32 am ]
Post subject:
Did he sell eggs? wrote: Indigo Kitsune wrote: Wasn't me who said math was man-made. I think I heard someone else say it because someone come up with "if there's zero, then there has to be nothing". Don't shoot the messenger. In my opinion, zero is more of a thing that you say. It doesn't imply, because you can't have zero. It is just there. But you can have zero of something, but not everything. Well, techincally, if the something you are reffering to is everything, then you do, in fact, have zero of everything. But the idea behind nothingness is that there is nothing at all. Step 1: take our universe. Step 2: remove all the mass and energy Step 3: That's nothing, right there. It's an impossible thing for us to do, but a universe of nothing does not break any laws of physics, and if something does not break a law of physics, then it is possible.

Author:	bwave [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:18 am ]
Post subject:
Did he sell eggs? wrote: That still doesn't make me think. Because I still don't get how you can have that nothing with that without breaking an unbreakable law. All the laws of physics are purely mathematical. If both sides of an equation are equal, then something is physically possible. 0=0. Possible.

Author:	Ninti [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:36 am ]
Post subject:
I don't believe zero is nothing, because what do you get when you add a zero to the end of 2? That's right, 20. And twenty is > 2, so, 0 has value, or is at least a place holder. Therefore, it's something.

Author:	bwave [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:22 am ]
Post subject:
We arent really referring to the symbol "0", we are reffering to the concept behind it. the 0 is inserted automatically when you go from 19 to 20. Also, the 0 in 20 refers to the fact that there is no value in the ones place. And your explaination only works in the base 10 number system. A value as a man-made label means nothing in a universe where humans dont exist.

Author:	PianoManGidley [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:
bwave wrote: Step 1: take our universe. Step 2: remove all the mass and energy Step 3: That's nothing, right there. It's an impossible thing for us to do, but a universe of nothing does not break any laws of physics, and if something does not break a law of physics, then it is possible. Physically, yes...but the query raised was merely is "nothingness" possible. I suppose we have to define first whether this is physical nothingness or philosophical nothingness. Philosophically speaking, I still say nothingness is impossible, because to conceive an idea of true nothingness in our minds means to give it a thought, to label it, to ponder it--once it has that, it has something (even if only a label), making it no longer nothing.

Author:	Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:
And you know, in order to have nothing, we must define "something." What is "something?" If something has mass, we usually assume it is a something, but is it? Could I say my computer with nothing? Could I say that I am nothing? Words are such arbritrary things...

Author:	bwave [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:02 am ]
Post subject:
PianoManGidley wrote: bwave wrote: Step 1: take our universe. Step 2: remove all the mass and energy Step 3: That's nothing, right there. It's an impossible thing for us to do, but a universe of nothing does not break any laws of physics, and if something does not break a law of physics, then it is possible. Physically, yes...but the query raised was merely is "nothingness" possible. I suppose we have to define first whether this is physical nothingness or philosophical nothingness. Philosophically speaking, I still say nothingness is impossible, because to conceive an idea of true nothingness in our minds means to give it a thought, to label it, to ponder it--once it has that, it has something (even if only a label), making it no longer nothing. Thats true, but I just assumed that eggs was referring to the physical, because he was asking about what color it would be, etc. Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote: And you know, in order to have nothing, we must define "something." What is "something?" If something has mass, we usually assume it is a something, but is it? Could I say my computer with nothing? Could I say that I am nothing? Words are such arbritrary things... We arent just putting the word 'nothing' on any random object, we are referring to the state of no mass or energy existing as being 'nothing'. Thinking about it from a linguistic point of view is counterproductive, because words are only here for the benefit of communication of mankind, when really, humans have no real role in the concept of nothingness.

Author:	Ju Ju Master [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:27 am ]
Post subject:
bwave wrote: Math is not a man-made thing. Math is, to quote galileo, "The language of nature". Math would exist even if it was not for human interaction with it. Humans are just another chemical system in the universe. There could never be an absence of math, because in any condition, zero, and infinity could still exist. (I said it, by the way) Math is still just a concept. You can't touch 1. You can touch 1 of something, but you can't touch the concept of one., Nor 0. Therefore, saying "0 is real, therefore nothingness is possible" is flawed - 0 is a concept.