I've been debating this subject for some time with a lot of people and I've always taken the view that "nothing" does not exist. No matter where you are in the universe their is something.
One example that always gets asked is about space. If you take a small parcel of space in any given place in the universe their still is "something" because the way I see it their are gamma rays, light rays, etc. Even if "nothing" did exist you would have to witness it through something, which means that it is not nothing since the nothing would be in the presense of something.
Does this make sense? Any ideas? Is it a valid argument?
What happens when the space is smaller than the smalest particle/piece of energy? Can one do that? Always make a space smaller? If so then there is such a thing as nothing.
Ha. Great post, and thanks for the information.
Let X be a set containing no elements. What's in it?
You may be interested to know what the uncertainty principle says. This is just the scientific view though.
'Nothing' has an exact momentum (zero) and an exact energy (zero). In order for something to have an exact momentum, it must have an infinite spatial distribution (i.e. it must be nothing everywhere). In order to have an exact energy it must always have existed since it takes an eternity for something (including nothing if it exists) to settle down to an exact energy. So nothing is infinite and eternal, whatever it isn't.
Not at all. IF nothing exists, it is infinite and eternal.
I think the point is that the physics shows that Nothing is an absurd concept.
Im still not sure we are on the same nothing as each other..your nothing appears to be a void..how can nothing go on for infinite if it does not exist?
No, I said "if nothing exists" not "if nothing doesn't exist". I said nothing about the non-existent of nothing. I'm merely stating the limits of its possible existence.
But nothing does not exist so how can you talk about its possible existance ? "If nothing exists" thats like saying when it exists..surely:perplexed:
Oh, I see. What you are saying is that nothing must exist in order for us to discuss its existence. We can talk about 'things', though. Nothing is just the negation of things. The human mind can quite capably consider a concept as a negation of another concept, even if the considered concept doesn't exist.
"If we can perceive the idea of "nothing," then by the principle of sufficient reason, nothing must surely exist..."
Ok. So the question is, can we conceptualise Nothing? I'd say not.