Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Whitedragon]

Can nothingness be reached? If I encounter nothingness in space, would it not be space that tells me where it is? Nothingness will always have a location if present in space. Where is there no space? It seems only NOTHINGNESS could “exist” for it to be truly nothing for these reasons. Nothingness appears to become a substance as soon as “something” exists, because something may force it into a location; and because nothingness would have to exert an infinite force to prevent itself from absorbing normal time and space; the force would give it substance, and in turn it would become something. It would also produce residual after effects, like massive gravimetric forces, that could even off set the expansion of space itself. Space is based on a vacuum concept, thus nothing will be a greater vacuum, making space more solid than itself. This could cause nothing to move away at trans warp speeds to escape normal space, until it ends up in an environment that is free of ALL itself. Thus nothing cannot exist in the same universe/dimension than us; if it does, it becomes something, and it may attempt to escape the universe if it’s an absolute state; or, if it’s not an absolute state, the force which holds it together may collapse, much like a deep sea creature being brought up from the depths. Depending on what kind of power was required to keep it in a state of nothingness, it could be cataclysmic when its fails to maintain its state.

A question, if “nothingness” attempts to escape the universe when exposed to normal space, can it be used under controlled conditions to create faster than light speed propulsion?

[Mechsmith]

I think that state of nothingness is employed by the proponents of the "Big Bang-Expanding Universe Theories. The Abrahamic religions called it the void. The void is noted by its lack of fields, forces and energies. Since gravity controls the speed of time this allows the Universe to expand faster than the speed of light for the first few millionths of a second. According to this view the leading parts of the "Expansion" are still traveling faster than "c" as there is no way that gravity, restricted to "c", can ever catch up.

Since nothing within the Universe can travel faster than "c" any parts of the Expansion that are farther from the "epicenter or singularity" than "c" makes possible whatever is outside the Universe to expand forever. Apparently it's expanding into the "Void".

In this case the Universe is defined by its fields, densities, energies, and time. So the origional note asked if nothingness can be reached. Yes, if you can get outside the Universe then there would be no time so you could go as fast as you liked. You may also use a black hole to travel faster than light a phenomonen which is loved by science fiction writers almost as much as they like "Wormholes".

This is only one view of the Universe. There are several more. (Understatement)

[Whitedragon]

I think that state of nothingness is employed by the proponents of the "Big Bang-Expanding Universe Theories. The Abrahamic religions called it the void. The void is noted by its lack of fields, forces and energies. Since gravity controls the speed of time this allows the Universe to expand faster than the speed of light for the first few millionths of a second. According to this view the leading parts of the "Expansion" are still traveling faster than "c" as there is no way that gravity, restricted to "c", can ever catch up.

Since nothing within the Universe can travel faster than "c" any parts of the Expansion that are farther from the "epicenter or singularity" than "c" makes possible whatever is outside the Universe to expand forever. Apparently it's expanding into the "Void".

In this case the Universe is defined by its fields, densities, energies, and time. So the origional note asked if nothingness can be reached. Yes, if you can get outside the Universe then there would be no time so you could go as fast as you liked. You may also use a black hole to travel faster than light a phenomonen which is loved by science fiction writers almost as much as they like "Wormholes".



This is only one view of the Universe. There are several more. (Understatement)

Did I not also say it would have to be outside the universe?

[Mechsmith]

Outside the Universe may not exist. There may also be "no nothing". I have been trying to build an antigravity machine which I think would be necessary to get outside but I haven't had any luck with it. With a black hole one may be able to do it but I don't think we would survive the foray into QM intact. If I can't remember the trip I don't want to go

[Platos stepchild]

In my opinion, the riddle of "nothingness" is resolved by considering how certain statements, although themselves logical, might nevertheless be found nonsensical. For example: even though we can ask the question "What is nothingness" (scorning the enigmatic gesture of "quoting"), that doesn't make it intelligible. The most obvious refutation of "nothingness" is the need for some sort of "mind/archive" to systematically delete everything, from existence, until finally recognizing when a state-of-nothingness has been achieved. The catch, of course is the necessary existence of a "mind/archive" (I'm tacitly assuming that no "mind/archive" can ever be infinitely deconstructed). It must, therefore eventually reach a state of "maximum deconstruction" (while yet remaining a "mind/archive"). Such a mind's (or, archive's) final "deletion", from existence is, of course itself. But, that's impossible. So, here's the thing: in order for "nothingness" to exist, the fact of that existence has to be remembered/archived, somewhere..., anywhere. What happens, though when there's nothing..., anywhere? "Nothingness" is self refuting. It simultaneously affirms, and denies that which it most needs, in order to exist.

Interestingly, the brain often embraces that which the gut rejects. In this case, the "gut" is enthralled with, and fearful of "nothingness"; whereas, the "brain" sees it as a logical dead-end. Somewhere, though must lie a center-of-gravity, a "Lagrangian point", cancelling out both "head, and heart. I, personally don't know, about that; although, I have long sought that elusive fulcrum. My gut's-eye-view, and my mind's-eye-view just won't jive. But, maybe they weren't meant to. I used to believe that "nothingness" was radical self-negation. It's really not, though. Instead, it provokes the brutal acknowledgement of our own "true minds" (That's what being "maximally deconstructed" means). Perhaps that's the allure of "nothingness". Although impossible to attain, the effort, nevertheless forces us to acknowledge the "seminal nature" of our minds, a brooding, infantile darkness. And that, is a dreadful, albeit compelling thing. Mirrors are seldom kind. The rhizome-of-nothingness is even less so. It reveals that which we spend whole lifetimes concealing: our inherent weaknesses, and shames. The titular question is "Can nothing exist alongside something?". Regardless of whether we're considering a mere "nothing", or abject "nothingness", the mirror's still there, a relentless truth, and dreadful tease. Maybe "nothingness" can actually exist alongside something real. It certainly seems to be the counterpoint my own lust, and regret, which are real, enough.

[Whitedragon]

There are certain states of extremes, which may never be attained, like absolute zero, but that doesn’t mean near states can’t be achieved, ex. relativistic speeds. What do you say of “nothingness,” or relativistic nothingness being used for propulsion as described in the OP question? Also what do you think of the notion that true nothingness CAN exist in parts of the universe that exhibit or allow the same states? As for can nothing exist alongside something, I think the answer is no, just like a hole in a coat is surrounded by material and air, it cannot completely be nothing without all air and material disappearing from the universe. For as long as there is something, nothing cannot exist completely.

[Theophane]

What kind of barrier would keep Nothing separate from Something? And would the Something cease to exist if it crossed the event horizon of ... The Nothing? Seriously, can Something become Nothing, or is Something always Something?

[Whitedragon]

What kind of barrier would keep Nothing separate from Something? And would the Something cease to exist if it crossed the event horizon of ... The Nothing? Seriously, can Something become Nothing, or is Something always Something?

Black next to white makes either one stand out, but in a universe where there is only one of the two… Something makes nothing something, especially if they are in relation to one another, but in a place where there is only nothing, nothing becomes complete. When you mix some oily substance into a water bowl, soap, (when touching it in the middle), pushes the oil to the sides. So one can assume that if this has already happen all the oil is on the rim, so by creating some oil in a soapy area, utilizing it for propulsion, guided carefully enough, would work to this effect. With the oil being “nothing” and the soap being something.

[Platos stepchild]

......

[Whitedragon]

......

Forgive me. I’m speaking in metaphors, so this might not sound too much like science, but many great scientific breakthroughs came through analogies like these. I’m just making casual conversation here, and far from trying to make any breakthroughs, please just try and bear with me. I mean, my intent was to simplify. If scientists can manage to create a substance that is foreign to our space-time dimensions; isn’t it likely that, that substance will be expelled from our space-time? The reason why I use “nothing” is that whatever nothing may be it clearly isn’t manifesting entirely in our space-time, and might be in a different dimension, or region of the universe. The soap and oil analogy is just an illustration. Nothing may be everywhere and something may be everywhere, but in different space-times and or dimensions. If something and nothing is separated by dimension, and if it is everywhere, that means this kind of travel is not mono-directional and can be created anywhere in space. Furthermore this state can also be used to make normal matter capable of faster than light speeds.

[Felix]

Mechsmith said: If I can't remember the trip I don't want to go.

Well, we're not letting you board the magic bus then... to paraphrase Jerry Garcia, "If you can remember the 60's trip, you weren't there."

I don't understand the title of this thread though: "Can nothing exist alongside something?" Why, have they been known to feud?

[Misty]

Nothing always exists alongside of something, just in case something disappears.

[Whitedragon]

Hi Felix,

They do not feud, but “something” does have the ability to make “nothing” less so. Nothing is supposedly void of everything, but as soon as there exists something in the same dimension or space-time, nothing can be plotted. Assuming that dimension or place separates the two, nothing may exist while something exists, but they are not in the same space-time / dimension. Maybe nothing is a force like strong and weak nuclear forces or rather a cause of such a phenomenon. Maybe the answer at finding “nothing” is in quantum physics. Forces, energy, and particles change as they extend into other dimensions; hence, (for example) dark matter doesn’t exist somewhere far away, but has been theorized to be the same materials, but only in higher dimensions; the same might be true for nothingness, and as soon as that comes into contact with something our space-time might attempt to expel it back. Wherever the distortion is created, (seeing it is everywhere), it could be utilized as population. Questions arise as to whether a lot of force is exerted to keep nothingness in this state, or whether being in this dimension demands no force at all; this will be the determining factor of whether it is truly nothing, because if it has to exert force, it is already interacting with something. Either way, I don’t think it is unfair to hypothesize that it may release huge amounts of energy when phased into our space-time, which could be harnessed.

So, Misty, if it does not exert force to maintain its state, and does not interact with something in anyway, then something doesn’t exist to nothing, unless it is “pulled” from that dimension; it could even be a result of two “something’s” interacting in a certain way, ex. nuclear fission or fusion. Either way, something like dark matter is invisible and undetectable to us, yet it makes up huge parts of us and accounts for most of the mass and energy. Nothing may have similar difficulties of being detected, but may hold perpetual energy.

[Q7382]

The answer requires the terminology to be more carefully specified. In particular, how is nothing different from space?

To paraphrase David Harriman: moving into a new house, you might ask your family, "What are we going to do with all this space?" What you wouldn't say is, "Let's move this space into the backyard so that we can make room for some furniture."

In other words, space is just the term we use to denote the separation between objects. It's a semantic placeholder, indicating merely that there isn't anything there. Without a more abstruse definition, it seems natural in a physical context to interpret space as simply a synonym for nothing.

I'm aware that General Relativity speaks of space being curved, which under this interpretation would be incoherent because "curved nothingness" is nonsense. Perhaps in General Relativity there is an actual definition of the term space that makes "curved space" mean something in terms of physical architecture, though I have not seen such a definition.

In short, I am wondering if this possible abuse of language in physics is what led you (OP) to the idea that nothing or space actually refer to something physical (something that can exist; that is, manifest as a physical object). If so, I suggest it might constitute an misinterpretation of General Relativity, or else GR is partly incoherent.

[HZY]

Actually, everything is in nothing. So nothingness is inclusive of something, not the other way around.