Think about it

[UnionPacific1983WP]

Thanks to my history teacher for giving me this idea, and sorry in advance for making people's brains hurt and robots have fried circuits.

If the state of "nothing" is something, then clearly the reverse is true.

Using this logic, we can determine that nothing is nothing.

Therefore, nothing is in the state of "something", I.e. nothing exists.

However, we know that to be a lie, as stuff DOES exist.

It's kind of a paradox. Now hang on a moment while I go contemplate the universe... JK.

[NuclearNut]

Paradoxes are merely the failure of our language to describe something or someone going and attempting to divide by zero.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

That.

Is.

Some.

Deep.

Kraken.

[Motokid600]

Inb4 missile guidance.

[mythbusters844]

The missile knows where it isn't at all times. It doesn't knows this because it knows nothing. By not subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains nothing, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to not generate corrective commands to not drive the missile from a position where it isn't to a position where it isn't, and not arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now isn't. Consequently, the position where it isn't, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it wasn't, is now the position that it isn't.

In the event that the position that it isn't in is not the position that it wasn't, the system hasn't acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile isn't, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may not be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it wasn't.

The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation hasn't modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it isn't sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it wasn't. It now subtracts where it shouldn't be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it wasn't, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called nothing.

[LordFerret]

Plato.

[justidutch]

The entire discussion, or argument, is based on the first line:

If the state of "nothing" is something, then clearly the reverse is true.

which I entirely disagree with, because the reverse statement is false: "the state of something is nothing".

There is no such thing as "nothing". There is not a thing in existence that can be called 'nothing'. Everything is measurable.

[Slam_Jones]

Nothing exists, absolutely. Most of space is filled with nothing.

The problem is, once you label it, it becomes something, because now there's data associated with it (a label that says "Nothing," in this case)

So if nothing is to remain nothing, it must be left alone.

[justidutch]

I don't know my particle physics, but I thought the theory is out there that what we thought of as empty bits of space is now filled by dark matter?

But you are correct. If there is indeed a thing that is actually nothing, it must remain that way hidden away behind lock and key…

…oh, wait…

the forest with the tree that falls that nobody can hear: is that a nothing thing?

[Slam_Jones]

^^ Ah, right. Well if it is filled with dark matter, then that's something at least.

I don't think the tree falling is a nothing thing, because the tree itself has mass, and volume, and is physically affecting it's environment. (Occupying space, taking in chemicals and releasing different chemicals) regardless of whether something is observing it.

I think of it kinda like a variable in a program. If no variable is declared, then it is nothing. There is no mention, there is not even a spark of an idea. It is empty space... un-observable (if that's a word), since it doesn't exist.

Once the variable is declared (whether or not it's used), then it is occupying space, affecting it's environment, and can be quantified. Even if there is no data attached to it, and it's basically a label hanging in a vacuum: it has a name, it has a declared area that it (may) take up space in. It has a room, even if that room is barren.

If any of that psuedo-science makes sense

[justidutch]

Ok, I can follow that an undeclared variable is a nothing thing.

Though if I follow my train of thought on this matter, then I must declare that a thing that is currently nothing must still be, in fact, an actual thing, since in the future this thing that is currently nothing will soon become something. Continuing my logic, then this thing that is nothing but will soon be something must not be nothing because of its potential.

The undeclared variable is eventually declared, it will eventually occupy a known and defined quantity of memory. It has become something, and if I remember correctly there's some law out there saying that a thing can not appear out of thin air. A thing can transform into a different kind of thing, its properties can change, but isn't there supposed to be conservation of mass and/or energy or something?

Therefore, even though we may not be able to measure it, every thing that is currently a nothing thing does have an amount of potential (energy of some kind, or mass, or something), and thus even a nothing is a thing.

I fully concede that I am most probably likely wrong about this thing, but it sure willen have been fun to potentially think about.

Edited September 23, 2015 by justidutch

[hugix]

Nothing exists, absolutely. Most of space is filled with nothing.

and yet nothing has properties. For instance, we are able to to send / receive radio signals send via this empty space.

[Kozak]

and yet nothing has properties. For instance, we are able to to send / receive radio signals send via this empty space.

Radio signals are the something that we send through nothing.

..and every cubic centimeter that you would consider to have "nothing" in it (on earth) contains up to 500 quintilian atoms. and in space about half that, though places have been found containing only one atom.

[Shpaget]

Empty space is not nothing. It's space/spacetime.

Nothing is what was (wasn't???) there before the Big Bang.

[Camacha]

then clearly the reverse is true.

This conclusion is incorrect, and thus is your entire argument.

/thread

[Bill Phil]

Nothing is something. And is also the sum of everything.

[Slam_Jones]

Nothing is something. And is also the sum of everything.

If nothing is something, why do we have a different word for it?

[SchweinAero]

I'm tempted to write this one off as yet another pseudo-philosophical thought spaghetti that exists because the concepts of "nothing" and "something" are incredibly badly defined.

[Camacha]

Besides, nothing is actually nothing. The definition of nothing is something, it being a definition, but that is not actually nothing. Only if you start mixing those up, nothing becomes something, but that is not because it is intrinsicly true.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Camacha

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

"If the state of "nothing" is something, then clearly the reverse is true." The problem here is that just because we have a word for it, that doesn't mean that it is something. Also, the reverse is not clearly true, by definition, "something" is not nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, nothing is actually nothing. The definition of nothing is something, it being a definition, but that is not actually nothing. Only if you start mixing those up, nothing because something, but that is not because it is intrinsicly true.

Exactly! We have a word for nothing because it makes it easier to identify.

[Bill Phil]

If nothing is something, why do we have a different word for it?

Why are you asking me? Nothing is a concept, a concept is a thing, therefore nothing is in fact something.

[Camacha]

Why are you asking me? Nothing is a concept, a concept is a thing, therefore nothing is in fact something.

You too are confusing a description with the actual thing (or lack of it). If I call my phone a banana, it changes nothing about the phone. If I call nothing nothing, it still is nothing and not something. As a concept it exists, as a word it exists, but neither change the actual thing (or lack of it).

[CG_Kerbin]

! Ive thought about that exact same pardox before.

[Bill Phil]

You too are confusing a description with the actual thing (or lack of it). If I call my phone a banana, it changes nothing about the phone. If I call nothing nothing, it still is nothing and not something. As a concept it exists, as a word it exists, but neither change the actual thing (or lack of it).

You have referred to nothing as a thing...

I'm not confusing a description with the actual thing. Let me explain like this: Nothing is used in regular conversation, in a specific context. Like, " there was nothing in the trunk." But there was air, and plenty of other things, such as microscopic life. Not only that, but even in space there is never nothing. There is always a certain amount of matter. There are also virtual particles, and even space itself. Nothing is only a concept, it can't exist, and a concept is a thing, therefore nothing is a thing.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Therefore why speaking about that kind things when it's just nothings.

Edited September 24, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''
in / out