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

Is "nothing-ness" possible?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10452		 Page 4 of 4
Author:  Did he sell eggs? [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Ju Ju Master wrote:
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.
Exactly! As sorta a side note, you might say then love can't exist. Well, you can emotionally feel t, but you can't emotionally feel zero.
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Love, again, is a concept. It isn't tangible, it's all in our heads. So yes, it cannot physically exist.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Ju Ju Master wrote:
Love, again, is a concept. It isn't tangible, it's all in our heads. So yes, it cannot physically exist.


Dude, physical love TOTALLY exists...look at 80% of the Internet...>>
Author:  Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Math is a man-made thing. Math is just another langage. The world would still exist without words to express it, and the universe would keep on ticking even if we didn't choose to express its ticks through a series of arbitrary symbols that represent quantities. Thinking about the subject mathetmatically is counterproductive too, because it represses the philosophical aspect of the discussion. We never really defined what sort of "nothing" we were after, after all. After all, Eggs began it with nothing more complex than an absence of color.

And even that is complex. Something that is black has both no color and every color, because it absorbs all colors of light (having every color) and reflects none (having no color). White is the same, but opposite.
Author:  Indigo Kitsune [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Cyber's got a point there.

What kind of 'nothing' are we talking about anyways?

It's hard to prove or disprove something when you don't know what on the blue and green Earth your talking about.

Throw me a flash light so I can find my way out of the dark woods.
Author:  Occasional JD [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Dimension Zero. Duh.
Author:  ready for prime time [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Indigo Kitsune wrote:
Throw me a flash light so I can find my way out of the dark woods.

flash light?

if i may, nothingness is not possible because even though there would be nothing, it is an absence of things. it is, therefore it is.
Author:  Revenge of the Burninated [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I think nothingness is very possible. If there is a point where there is no matter, and no energy, than what is there? Nothing.

The amount of matter and energy in a system cannot be changed. Not sure if that applies.
Anyway, nothing is like the concept of zero, infinity, and negative numbers. It is a concept, nothing more. It may be useful in equations, but the fact is, the only way to have nothing would be to not have a universe at all. Possible, but not observable, making it metaphysics, not science. And don't say outside the universe, because that concept doesn't really make sense. A system is defined by a star with planets around it, a galaxy is a mass (usu. a black hole) with stars around it. The universe's only definition is everything. It has no bounds--it goes on possibly forever. If it has an edge, this is the edge of reality. Maybe nothing is outside it, but only because there is no space outside it, meaning it cannot be reached and there is not a specific location or measurement of nothing.
Hm...
EDIT-
Quote:
So if there's nothing, then there can be something. Because what do you get when you take something away? You get nothing.

You can't take something away. Matter and Energy can neither be created or destroyed by natural forces. Moot. If you pick up a box and remove it, you're really only moving it, and air moves back into its place.
Quote:
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."

Depends on your definition of the Big Bang. I'd prefer not to get into origins right now, but if there was nothing, not even energy, before the Bang, what caused it to happen? Where did it come from? Something, or someone, had to be there to start it, something unbound by natural laws, because he wrote them...
And what is all this about a finite universe and other universes? What defines a universe? The word was originally used simply for existence, I believe. Correct me if I am wrong, but what scientific evidence is there for more universes or even the possibility of existence outside the universe?
Author:  bwave [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote:
And even that is complex. Something that is black has both no color and every color, because it absorbs all colors of light (having every color)
But if there was no light in the universe, then there would be nothing for black to absorb.

And math is not man-made.
Author:  Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:54 am ]
Post subject: 
bwave wrote:
And math is not man-made.


Math is a language, therefore it is man-made. Math is merely a means via which we describe physical processes. Although they happen in ways which we are capable of describing via a system of equations and quantities, the logic we use to do so is our own. Although we know, for example, that an object's mass times its velocity is its momentum, a paperweight doesn't sit around thinking, "Well, I weigh one kilogram, and I'm being held about one meter above the ground, so if the guy holding me drops me, I have to be sure to impact the ground with about 9.8 newtons of force!" Nature just does it. It doesn't do the calculations.

That's like saying that language is not man-made. We didn't invent the rose, the pond, or the rock. But we did create the words "rose," "pond," and "rock." The universe doesn't need these arbitrary sounds to describe the things in it. But in order to understand things, we humans must assign words and names to things.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote:
bwave wrote:
And math is not man-made.


Math is a language, therefore it is man-made. Math is merely a means via which we describe physical processes. Although they happen in ways which we are capable of describing via a system of equations and quantities, the logic we use to do so is our own. Although we know, for example, that an object's mass times its velocity is its momentum, a paperweight doesn't sit around thinking, "Well, I weigh one kilogram, and I'm being held about one meter above the ground, so if the guy holding me drops me, I have to be sure to impact the ground with about 9.8 newtons of force!" Nature just does it. It doesn't do the calculations.

That's like saying that language is not man-made. We didn't invent the rose, the pond, or the rock. But we did create the words "rose," "pond," and "rock." The universe doesn't need these arbitrary sounds to describe the things in it. But in order to understand things, we humans must assign words and names to things.


I think that bwave meant that while our conceptualization, understanding, and ultimate organization of the study of mathematics is a human device, the laws that it studies and represents originated in nature.
Author:  Indigo Kitsune [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:07 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm still lost in the dark woods about WHAT kind of NOTHING we're talking about.

And if someone says 'dimension' nothing-ness again, I wish you'd explain exactly what your talking about. I know I'm pretty intelligent. But I'm not a rocket scientist.

So what exactly are we talking about in the concept of nothing.

And I'm still waiting on that flash light.
Author:  bwave [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:25 am ]
Post subject: 
PianoManGidley wrote:
I think that bwave meant that while our conceptualization, understanding, and ultimate organization of the study of mathematics is a human device, the laws that it studies and represents originated in nature.
Yep. It would still exist even if we didnt write it out.
Author:  Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
bwave wrote:
PianoManGidley wrote:
I think that bwave meant that while our conceptualization, understanding, and ultimate organization of the study of mathematics is a human device, the laws that it studies and represents originated in nature.
Yep. It would still exist even if we didnt write it out.


But why then is language still considered a human construct when the world would clearly still exist even if we weren't talking about it?

I understand what you're saying, and the world would still operate according to laws, but the ways in which we choose to describe them are our own. WE wrote the equations in a logistical style that makes sense to US, WE determined the calculations, and WE determined how much of what equals a certain quantity. Even numbers are not perfectly set, depending on which base set you use. So although nature very definitely follows a set, calculateable path, the numbers we apply to it are our own. Mathematics is still merely a translation and a description--and as it is taught in schools, often abstract in ways that completely distances it from nature.
Author:  bwave [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
We didnt make any of those things, we discovered them.

Name a mathematical discovery that humans invented.
Author:  Did he sell eggs? [ Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
You guys are amazing. This is the craziest argument ever! And you guys make so much sense! (In a way.) It's people like this that make wars. (That was a compliment.)
Author:  Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:34 am ]
Post subject: 
bwave wrote:
We didnt make any of those things, we discovered them.

Name a mathematical discovery that humans invented.


I'm not saying that we "invented" the logic that drives the universe. I'm saying that we invented the means by which WE can comprehend how it works. You can discover how something works, but you have to create a language others can understand in order to describe your discovery to others. Mathematics is that language that we use to describe our discoveries in the fields of science.

Nature only has two or three real quantities: Atoms and molecules for matter, quanta for energy and the speed of light in a vacuum, if you want to take that into consideration. Any other divisions are purely human in construct. Nature doesn't think of matter in terms of grams, liters, moles (well, so maybe that one is debatable), or force in terms of joules and newtons. These are units which we as humans created for our convenience. They are merely labels for quantities, the amount specified by each of them also human-assigned. We build our formulae around them, and though they give us an accurate picture of the world around us, they are not "rigid." We could change them to encorporate other units of measurement instead of meters and grams, and provided we did the calculations right, they would still give us a viable answer. Just in a different sort of unit.

And if we change base, everything gets turned upside-down. The fact that more than one base system "works" in our universe further shows that math is a language. You can still calculate physics and chemistry problems in, say, hexidecimal notation, you just have to make sure you convert all your constants as well.

Again, I am not claiming that the underlying mechanics of our universe are of purely human construct. However, I am saying that the means by which we EXPRESS these mechanics is of our own invention.
Author:  bwave [ Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Cybernetic Teenybopper wrote:
Again, I am not claiming that the underlying mechanics of our universe are of purely human construct. However, I am saying that the means by which we EXPRESS these mechanics is of our own invention.

But then what is the problem with using math?
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Because our concept of math (1, 2, 10, etc.) is man-made. Just because we have a symbol for 0 doesn't mean it's possible to physically obtain it.

Also, just wanted to point out, if nature doesn't think in grams (which it doesn't) it doesn't think in moles. Simply put, amu x Avogadro's number = grams.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Of course nothing-ness is possible!
If we have nothing, we can name it nothing-ness, and even if that does mean it exists, it's still 'nothing-ness', right? 'Cause that's what it'd be called.
Author:  bwave [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ju Ju Master wrote:
Because our concept of math (1, 2, 10, etc.) is man-made. Just because we have a symbol for 0 doesn't mean it's possible to physically obtain it.


Math isnt about symbols, people. For the last time, the word math refers to the concept behind the numbers.
Author:  Revenge of the Burninated [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
I hate cosmology b/c it all deals with concepts. Just because we can imagine nothing and come up with physical properties (if we could, which we can't) doesn't mean it's real. If something cannot happen in this universe, it's not possible. Even if it could theoretically happen if there was no universe, there is a universe, so nothing is not possible. Maybe, if there is space outside the universe, it could have nothing, but since we're not getting there anytime soon, for all practical purposes, we cannot prove or even assume the validity of nothing.
Author:  bwave [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nothingness would be an eighth dimensional point on the 9th dimensional plane.

Go check out extremejon's post.

http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10570&start=0
Author:  Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Revenge of the Burninated wrote:
I hate cosmology b/c it all deals with concepts. Just because we can imagine nothing and come up with physical properties (if we could, which we can't) doesn't mean it's real. If something cannot happen in this universe, it's not possible. Even if it could theoretically happen if there was no universe, there is a universe, so nothing is not possible. Maybe, if there is space outside the universe, it could have nothing, but since we're not getting there anytime soon, for all practical purposes, we cannot prove or even assume the validity of nothing.


A lot of things deal with concepts. Pretty much everything does in some way. :P I wouldn't say it's not worth thinking about... You may not get anywhere when you run on a tredmill, but it still excercises your muscles. So "thought experiments" help keep your neurons limber, and helps big thinkers and scientists and whatnot stay on their toes. :P
Author:  Revenge of the Burninated [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
hmm...let me reprhase that and try to save face. I like talking about cosmology--it is fun and stimulating, like you said, Cyber. I hate it when people try to prove things with cosmology or treat it like science or fact instead of philospohy and conjecture, which it is. The treadmill is a good example--especially if someone were to use a treadmill and insist that they had been going someplace. But to me, saying nothing exists because we can concieve it is like saying "Well, Napolean could have conquered Russia, so I guess he did." This leads to that crazy altrenate reality idea which was only made to prove this notion. So my point is--yes, we can picture nothing, sort of, but that doesn't mean it's real.
Still, it is very fun to talk about--whoever wrote this thread=genius.
Author:  Cybernetic Teenybopper [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oooh. Sorry, Revenge. Apology noted, and here is your face back. :P
Page 4 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/