About the universe generally

[houserichichi]

Hugh, I think the big question we need to ponder (and you have probably already pondered it in another thread that I can't seem to track down) is whether "absolute nothing" exists. Another question to ponder is whether spacetime is a "something" or not as one can't hold a chunk of it in our hands and it's not made up of anything nor represented through an elementary field or particle. Spacetime is nothing more than the abstract arena on which our calculations and observations apply...I'm not sure if it's so much a physical question as it is a philosophical one.

[Hugh]

Hugh, I think the big question we need to ponder (and you have probably already pondered it in another thread that I can't seem to track down) is whether "absolute nothing" exists.

We may have discussed it in the Fourth Dimension Discussion Forum. To me, "absolute nothingness" is just that. It is the total absence of absolutely anything.

Another question to ponder is whether spacetime is a "something" or not as one can't hold a chunk of it in our hands and it's not made up of anything nor represented through an elementary field or particle. Spacetime is nothing more than the abstract arena on which our calculations and observations apply...I'm not sure if it's so much a physical question as it is a philosophical one.

Spacetime includes space and time, it's a something, and it's definitely not "absolute nothingness".

[houserichichi]

You're correct, so let me try and reword what I was trying to say. Time and space are both "things". They are backdrops in which our models and our mathematics and our observations work. I assume we can agree on that. Absolute nothingness is something I think we both agree on - there is nothing there whatsoever. In mathematics we'd call that an empty set, I suppose.

Now I pose this question: is "creation" in a universe devoid of matter (the "stuff") any different than creation in a "non-universe"?

That is, take an empty part of spacetime. It's not "absolutely empty" in your sense of the word because there is still space and time there, but there are no extraeneous factors we need to worry about for the sake of simplicity. All of a sudden an electron-positron pair sprouts up from nowhere. This is a creation.

Now take an absolutely empty ... universe ... I guess is what I'll call it. It's absolutely empty so really it's not actually there. But let's pretend that some singularity crops up from nowhere and then explodes and fills this absolute nothingness with a great universe (wherein electrons and positrons are free to sprout up on their own from time to time).

Now are the two any different? Are the fields in which we measure our perturbations off as positron-electron pairs actually "real" or are they simply mathematical curiosities that our minds have embodied in the form of particles? One cannot hold a piece of the universe in their hands. They can hold its contents, but they cannot pick up a knife and cut a slice out of the universe. Keeping time out of the equation (so just space, not spacetime now), is our little slice of "empty" space any different than "absolute nothingness"? Is space really a thing? If so can it be differentiated from nothingness? In math we'd say that absolute nothingness is the empty set. What would we call our set with no elements (the empty part of the universe)? I'd call it the empty set too. Maybe I'm biased.

I understand the concept of absolute nothingness, but I cannot tell it apart from empty spacetime for the sole reason that I can't measure or see or definitively tell you that "there is 'space' where I'm taking my measurements". To me space is nothing more than a philosophical construct, but the same as absolute nothingness.

The only saving grace I have is that I take for granted (assume) that there is no spacetime (whatever it is) beyond the boundary of our universe. So THAT'S where your absolute nothingness is. But then is it really there at all? Is absolute nothingness is just that, then it really doesn't exist, does it?

I do hope I haven't gone off on a tangent or talked out my ass.

[Hugh]

You're correct, so let me try and reword what I was trying to say. Time and space are both "things". They are backdrops in which our models and our mathematics and our observations work. I assume we can agree on that. Absolute nothingness is something I think we both agree on - there is nothing there whatsoever.

Agreed.

Now I pose this question: is "creation" in a universe devoid of matter (the "stuff") any different than creation in a "non-universe"?

In the first case, something is already there, so matter may appear under certain conditions, if certain physical laws - already in place - allow for it to happen. Let's say that there is a potential of energy in the space to begin with. In the second case, there isn't anything there, no physical laws even, or anywhere for anything to happen. How can something happen if there is nothing there or anywhere in the first place?

Now take an absolutely empty ... universe ... I guess is what I'll call it. It's absolutely empty so really it's not actually there. But let's pretend that some singularity crops up from nowhere and then explodes and fills this absolute nothingness with a great universe

Um, if there is nowhere for the singularity to appear, where exactly does it appear? And where exactly does it come from if there is nothing there to begin with?

is our little slice of "empty" space any different than "absolute nothingness"? Is space really a thing? If so can it be differentiated from nothingness?

I'd say space is a thing, it's a place for something to happen in.

I understand the concept of absolute nothingness, but I cannot tell it apart from empty spacetime for the sole reason that I can't measure or see or definitively tell you that "there is 'space' where I'm taking my measurements". To me space is nothing more than a philosophical construct, but the same as absolute nothingness.

I'd have to disagree with you there house.

The only saving grace I have is that I take for granted (assume) that there is no spacetime (whatever it is) beyond the boundary of our universe. So THAT'S where your absolute nothingness is. But then is it really there at all? Is absolute nothingness is just that, then it really doesn't exist, does it?

Absolute nothingness does not exist because we exist. For absolute nothingness to exist there would have to be absolutely nothing everywhere, which would be nowhere.

I do hope I haven't gone off on a tangent or talked out my ass.

You never do that house.

[jinydu]

Perhaps I can try to weigh in a little more carefully here.

As far as I know, in all the physics theories that I have studied before (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and special relativity), one deals with a "system", a collection of things that one is interested in. Then, one assumes that it is possible to describe the system using a coordinate system. One then goes on to write down laws that are valid and make sense, once a coordinate system is defined.

For example, a rigorous version of Maxwell's electromagnetism would probably look something like this:

1) Let S be a system that is describable by some "continuous" coordinate system in both space and time (that is, one where it is possible to define derivatives with respect to space and time).

2) There exist functions E and B that assign to every point in space and time in S a 3-dimensional vector.

3) E and B satisfy Maxwell's equations.

Thus, as far as I know, physics assumes the existence of spacetime, and then proceeds based on that assumption.

Note: This may not be true for some of the more advanced theories, such as general relativity, that I have not studied yet.

[Nick]

Note: This may not be true for some of the more advanced theories, such as general relativity, that I have not studied yet.

I am 90% sure that the same is true. I haven't studied it either, but I read Einstein's book.

[houserichichi]

General relativity is coordinate-free, but the general idea is the same...set up some mathematical axioms and see what laws and properties flow out because of them. If such things are in accordance with experimental results and observations then the theory has grounding and merit.

[papernuke]

yea cuz like if something dosent do anything to you that you fell or react to, they really arent there

[Keiji]

Empty space is not absolute nothingness.

Imagine a torus, whose surface contains empty space. A 2D being on the surface of said torus would observe empty space. However, it is not absolute nothingness, because a torus exists there.

Similarly, every point of empty space in our universe may simply be a point on a tetratorus. Even if every point in our universe was empty space, there would still not be absolute nothingness.

[moonlord]

Absolute nothingness means nothing can be defined there. That is, not even space or time.

[Hugh]

Absolute nothingness means nothing can be defined there. That is, not even space or time.

I'd agree there. Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything and everything.

[thigle]

even the absence of absence ? or is that too much ?

i find that absolute nothingness is nothingness of even nothingness. i agree with houserichichi on spacetime not being absolute nothingness and that it is abstract arena, if that spacetime is (also) socially projected construction is what he meant.

so absolute nothingness is interpretable as fullness. of experience, in the sense that experience is no longer mediated by interpretation. because it is void of projection feedback (including subject&object strucutures). it is void of causality too, or at least not bound by linear causality paradigm, but running mutual causality feedback-loop as its application.

in macrocosmic languague it would be that universe as application is running within the BIOS of absolute nothingness, within operating system of absolute emptiness.

but in actuality, all is constantly arising and dropping back into emptiness. thoughts, perceptions, sounds wrapped in silence, we, words, worlds and universes. the nothing is constantly giving birth to everything, without being affected by it. it's just out of frame. that framelessness.

the universe is a heter/hier-archy of levels of organisation that spread from total archetypal absence to ideal presence. these can not only coexist, they are indivisible.

everything comes from nothing. or streams from.
or not even that. Dogen says: 'wood doesn't turn to ashes. ash is ash and wood is wood. ..."

hugs & kisses

[Hugh]

even the absence of absence ?

Yes. (HA! Have you been reading my Fourth Dimension Discussion Forum posts?!) :wink:

i find that absolute nothingness is nothingness of even nothingness. i agree with houserichichi on spacetime not being absolute nothingness

Me too.

but in actuality, all is constantly arising and dropping back into emptiness. thoughts, perceptions, sounds wrapped in silence, we, words, worlds and universes. the nothing is constantly giving birth to everything, without being affected by it.

I'd disagree with you there. There is a difference between the "emptiness" of which you speak and "absolute nothingness", and the "nothing" giving birth to everything in your context isn't "absolute nothingness" either. (Oh oh, I just violated moonlord's Rule number zero, I disagreed with thigle.)

[thigle]

that's cool to break laws that don't hold by that.

so we can disagree on the point of , but let me unfold my perspective:

what is being done with claiming that nothing cannot bring forth something is like when zenon claimed that arrow never hits the target or that achilles never catches up with turtle that starts before he does: it is postulating a proposition that blocks, or cuts off certain presuppositions based on lower logic, that is however used in the proposition, but in a paradoxical way, so that the logic undermines itself.

zenon was showing that distinction between continuous & discrete approaches (i.e. whether space is infinitely divisible or there exists some fundamental llimit to the process of division), is not answerable by neither of these stances. to that he devised a fourfold of paradoxes to exhaust all the possibilities of the logical system bound by XOR approach to discrete/continuous to the issue at-hand.

thus he pointed beyond the XOR approach.

now what does it say with respect to something/nothing pair? simply that one-over-other model is not relevant enough to cover all the observed complexities and that it could be exhahusted by finding scenarios that arrive at deadpoint from within this distinction, that possibilities of these can be configured in 4fold that cover the whole spectrum and exhaust it.

a model where neither conjunction nor disjunction of nothing/something is enough, and that's what's left over is the trick.
so that NEITHER (BOTH something comes from nothing AND something doesn't come from nothing) NOR (NEITHER something comes from nothing NOR something doesn't come from nothing)

can anyone think this mass of propositions with something/nothing as actors and coming/going and their oppositions as action ?