Something can also exist from nothing. If something has an equal amount of negative and positive energy, i.e. equal to 0, then ultimately we can feel both the negative and positive effects of nothing.
Philosophy is dead...?
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
Something can also exist from nothing. If something has an equal amount of negative and positive energy, i.e. equal to 0, then ultimately we can feel both the negative and positive effects of nothing.
actually 1 existed long before 0, zero was the "last" of the numbers to be invented
By a Muslim if I recall....
By a Muslim if I recall....
Indian/Hindu iirc.
actually 1 existed long before 0, zero was the "last" of the numbers to be invented
I was merely using numbers as an analogy for what I said above it.
However, I must add that zero must have always existed - if I have zero oranges for example, I have nothing. If nothing has always existed, as some are claiming, then zero must always have existed.
So ner ner ner
Yeah, Aryabhatta and later by Bhāskara. However it was Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī on the request of Al-Mansur that created the Arabic numeral system based on the Indian one that we all use today. I think.
I was merely using numbers as an analogy for what I said above it.
However, I must add that zero must have always existed - if I have zero oranges for example, I have nothing. If nothing has always existed, as some are claiming, then zero must always have existed.
So ner ner ner
No, not nothing. Just no Oranges. Nothing cannot be something.... can it?
Playing the devil's advocate:
By it's nature, nothing is something?
If it really was nothing, we wouldn't be aware of it and give it a name.
All depends on your definition of nothing - and by defining it you give it a 'something'.
Yes it can, the entirety of the Universe's energy equates to nothing.
So it is no longer Nothing, which is my point. It is a perception exercise. To really have Nothing you would need to be unaware you had Nothing otherwise you just don't have Something.
For example with the Oranges. You don't have any Oranges, so you don't have Something. To have Nothing you would need to be unaware Oranges existed, otherwise you would know you didn't have any Oranges.
Last edited:
Explain?
So it is no longer Nothing, which is my point. It is a perception exercise. To really have Nothing you would need to be unaware you had Nothing otherwise you just don't have Something.
For example with the Oranges. You don't have any Oranges, so you don't have Something. To have Nothing you would need to be unaware Oranges existed, otherwise you would know you didn't have any Oranges.
You've just said what I said
Unfortunately it's perception that defeats us everytime in these matters.
Just like the innate human desire to label everything, to measure everything the smallest degree. Our brains just can't deal with the idea that something may just 'be' or may be infinite, as in existing forever, it's always been there and always will.
It's a trait that has led to some amazing achievements, as without the inquisitive nature we wouldn't be as technologically advanced, nor mentally advanced as we are.
No matter how far advanced we become, I fear humanity will be no more and will never fully answer the questions posed in the opening post of this thread.
To my mind, a slightly depressing, yet awe-inspiring thought.
ps. spending 10 hours a day driving your rattly tincans around all day gives plenty of thinking time for these things - I may be no philosopher but the whole subject fascinates me endlessly.
You've just said what I said
Unfortunately it's perception that defeats us everytime in these matters.
Just like the innate human desire to label everything, to measure everything the smallest degree. Our brains just can't deal with the idea that something may just 'be' or may be infinite, as in existing forever, it's always been there and always will.
It's a trait that has led to some amazing achievements, as without the inquisitive nature we wouldn't be as technologically advanced, nor mentally advanced as we are.
No matter how far advanced we become, I fear humanity will be no more and will never fully answer the questions posed in the opening post of this thread.
To my mind, a slightly depressing, yet awe-inspiring thought.
ps. spending 10 hours a day driving your rattly tincans around all day gives plenty of thinking time for these things - I may be no philosopher but the whole subject fascinates me endlessly.
I thought you were using the analogy to say that Nothing or Zero must have always existed as a concept. You were saying that if you had zero oranges you would have Nothing. I am saying that you would not have Something
I am saying that you cannot have Nothing, you can simply not have Something.
My ratty tincans?
Positive energy like particles of matter and photons exactly balance the negative force of mavity. So whilst it may appear like there is something, essentially we are just able to distinguish nothing.
What about the quantum-mechanical vacuum. There is always something, be it matter, or fields of some description. Is there something I can read on what you suggest? I'm intrigued.
The sum total of all may cancel each others consituent components out but that does not mean the same as nothing which would imply none of the clever stuff rather than what you are describing which is an equilibrium of sorts. John Terry's defending may cancel out Wayne Rooney's attacking but that does not mean they are not on the pitch - bad analogy I know they are more likely shacked up with some ***** than on the pitch or injured or hiding but you get what I mean I am sure.
It's all because of the Quantum mechanical vacuum!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
It's not that simple though, Quantum fluctuations are actually fluctuations of energy within a vacuum! It sounds like a paradox and tbh is something I don't really understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein–Gordon_equation
Last edited:
Only in a Flat Universe Model. Hyperbolic or spherical Universe Models this is not the case. Also Dark Energy would negate the Zero Energy hypothesis.
Last edited:
From your link which is what I said - not nothing - but equilibrium or am I reading it wrong?
"The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.[1] The amount of positive energy in form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in form of mavity.[2]"
Again your link implies what I said:
"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles."
If I am reading that correct that it does not alter what I said (I think) that you are not talking about nothing more a balance of energy. Not really my area of expertise so if someone can explain where my understanding is wrong please explain in more detail!
My thoughts really. The human mind has no answer to nothingness.
I agree with you. I feel that there is some confusion over the numerical value Zero and the concept of Nothing. They are not neccessarily the same thing.