Define Nothing

Can any one define "nothing"?

The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:15 GMT, pinkling
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:20:57 GMT in
, Roger Halstead
graced the world with this thought:


The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen

So the definition in the dictionary wasn't good enough, or what?

Nope it isn't.

Basically they define it as what it is not, not what it is and my old
college prof would never have let me get away with something like
that..

Nothing def: "Something that does not exist." They are defining it
in terms of itself. "Something" that does not exist. What doesn't
exist?..."Something".

We really don't have a concept for nothing as we always have to use an
incomplete definition by defining it as "something", or in terms of
itself.

The closest I've seen is Nothing "The absolute absence of everything".
Again, it's defined in terms of what it is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, or at least a better one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:15 GMT, pinkling
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:20:57 GMT in
, Roger Halstead
graced the world with this thought:


The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen

So the definition in the dictionary wasn't good enough, or what?

Nope it isn't.

Basically they define it as what it is not, not what it is and my old
college prof would never have let me get away with something like
that..

Nothing def: "Something that does not exist." They are defining it
in terms of itself. "Something" that does not exist. What doesn't
exist?..."Something".

We really don't have a concept for nothing as we always have to use an
incomplete definition by defining it as "something", or in terms of
itself.

The closest I've seen is Nothing "The absolute absence of everything".
Again, it's defined in terms of what it is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, or at least a better one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Nonsense. Many opposites are defined that way. Cold is the absence of
heat, dark is the absence of light, silence is the absence of sound, nothing
is the absence of anything. As long as one term can be well defined, its
opposite will be equally well defined.



"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:15 GMT, pinkling
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:20:57 GMT in
, Roger Halstead
graced the world with this thought:


The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen

So the definition in the dictionary wasn't good enough, or what?

Nope it isn't.

Basically they define it as what it is not, not what it is and my old
college prof would never have let me get away with something like
that..

Nothing def: "Something that does not exist." They are defining it
in terms of itself. "Something" that does not exist. What doesn't
exist?..."Something".

We really don't have a concept for nothing as we always have to use an
incomplete definition by defining it as "something", or in terms of
itself.

The closest I've seen is Nothing "The absolute absence of everything".
Again, it's defined in terms of what it is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, or at least a better one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Nonsense. Many opposites are defined that way. Cold is the absence of
heat, dark is the absence of light, silence is the absence of sound, nothing
is the absence of anything. As long as one term can be well defined, its
opposite will be equally well defined.



"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:15 GMT, pinkling
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:20:57 GMT in
, Roger Halstead
graced the world with this thought:


The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen

So the definition in the dictionary wasn't good enough, or what?

Nope it isn't.

Basically they define it as what it is not, not what it is and my old
college prof would never have let me get away with something like
that..

Nothing def: "Something that does not exist." They are defining it
in terms of itself. "Something" that does not exist. What doesn't
exist?..."Something".

We really don't have a concept for nothing as we always have to use an
incomplete definition by defining it as "something", or in terms of
itself.

The closest I've seen is Nothing "The absolute absence of everything".
Again, it's defined in terms of what it is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, or at least a better one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

"Bill Nunnelee" wrote in message...
hlink.net...

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:15 GMT, pinkling
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:20:57 GMT in
, Roger Halstead
graced the world with this thought:

The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen

So the definition in the dictionary wasn't good enough, or what?

Nope it isn't.

Basically they define it as what it is not, not what it is and my old
college prof would never have let me get away with something like
that..

Nothing def: "Something that does not exist." They are defining it
in terms of itself. "Something" that does not exist. What doesn't
exist?..."Something".

We really don't have a concept for nothing as we always have to use an
incomplete definition by defining it as "something", or in terms of
itself.

The closest I've seen is Nothing "The absolute absence of everything".
Again, it's defined in terms of what it is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, or at least a better one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Nonsense. Many opposites are defined that way. Cold is the absence of
heat, dark is the absence of light, silence is the absence of sound, nothing
is the absence of anything. As long as one term can be well defined, its
opposite will be equally well defined.

Bill, i think Roger is looking for more than this. For example,
try using your above method to describe dark and light, black
and white, or even gray to, say, a person who's been blind
since birth.

"Something" and "nothing" would be easy to define in this
respect?

Roger, the idea of "nothing" is truly a difficult concept to
grasp. Look how long it took for the world of mathematics
to finally get a zero! And even having a zero can be, well,
a bit unsettling. A case in point would be the answer to...

"When did the new millennium begin? on January 1, 2000?
or did it start on January 1, 2001? Most people celebrated
it on the former, and most of your science-types partied on
the latter date (the *real* party hounds wasted themselves
on *both* dates g)

"Nothing" is ultimately a term used to define "something."
There really isn't any such thing as "nothing." Even if you
were to whisk yourself out into intergalactic space, you
could never get so far away from galaxies that you would
not be able to see "something."

Space itself cannot be "nothing"... scientists believe that
space is expanding, that it's been expanding for billions of
years since the Big Bang. Can "nothing" expand? If space
can expand, then space must be "something," right?

Now i suppose that from time to time we can become very
acutely aware of some level of "nothing," eg, when we get
those nasty postcards from the bank charging us more of
what we don't have because our checking account is down
to "nothing."

And yet there is really only one way to get a true feel for the
definition of "nothing"... that's when, heavens forbid, you
should ever find yourself lying beneath an interstate
overpass with an empty wine bottle next to you... and
somebody's stolen your shoes. Then you might start to
get an inkling, a clue, about what "nothing" really is.

How's that Kristofferson song go? "Freedom's just
another word for *nothing* left to lose..."

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
if you have love,
you really have something,
if you give love,
you'll never have nothing.

Paine Ellsworth

"Bill Nunnelee" wrote in message...
hlink.net...

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:15 GMT, pinkling
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:20:57 GMT in
, Roger Halstead
graced the world with this thought:

The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen

So the definition in the dictionary wasn't good enough, or what?

Nope it isn't.

Basically they define it as what it is not, not what it is and my old
college prof would never have let me get away with something like
that..

Nothing def: "Something that does not exist." They are defining it
in terms of itself. "Something" that does not exist. What doesn't
exist?..."Something".

We really don't have a concept for nothing as we always have to use an
incomplete definition by defining it as "something", or in terms of
itself.

The closest I've seen is Nothing "The absolute absence of everything".
Again, it's defined in terms of what it is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, or at least a better one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Nonsense. Many opposites are defined that way. Cold is the absence of
heat, dark is the absence of light, silence is the absence of sound, nothing
is the absence of anything. As long as one term can be well defined, its
opposite will be equally well defined.

Bill, i think Roger is looking for more than this. For example,
try using your above method to describe dark and light, black
and white, or even gray to, say, a person who's been blind
since birth.

"Something" and "nothing" would be easy to define in this
respect?

Roger, the idea of "nothing" is truly a difficult concept to
grasp. Look how long it took for the world of mathematics
to finally get a zero! And even having a zero can be, well,
a bit unsettling. A case in point would be the answer to...

"When did the new millennium begin? on January 1, 2000?
or did it start on January 1, 2001? Most people celebrated
it on the former, and most of your science-types partied on
the latter date (the *real* party hounds wasted themselves
on *both* dates g)

"Nothing" is ultimately a term used to define "something."
There really isn't any such thing as "nothing." Even if you
were to whisk yourself out into intergalactic space, you
could never get so far away from galaxies that you would
not be able to see "something."

Space itself cannot be "nothing"... scientists believe that
space is expanding, that it's been expanding for billions of
years since the Big Bang. Can "nothing" expand? If space
can expand, then space must be "something," right?

Now i suppose that from time to time we can become very
acutely aware of some level of "nothing," eg, when we get
those nasty postcards from the bank charging us more of
what we don't have because our checking account is down
to "nothing."

And yet there is really only one way to get a true feel for the
definition of "nothing"... that's when, heavens forbid, you
should ever find yourself lying beneath an interstate
overpass with an empty wine bottle next to you... and
somebody's stolen your shoes. Then you might start to
get an inkling, a clue, about what "nothing" really is.

How's that Kristofferson song go? "Freedom's just
another word for *nothing* left to lose..."

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
if you have love,
you really have something,
if you give love,
you'll never have nothing.

Paine Ellsworth

Roger Halstead wrote:
Can any one define "nothing"?

[ text omitted ]



Roger:

You might want to check the definitions and explanations that have been
offered in the Philosophy of Objectivism, from Ayn Rand, and also by
Aristotle.

See the definitions for universe, existence, existent, entity, and
something, for example.

The concept of "nothing" only exists based upon the concept of
"something". "Nothing is a dependent concept, and it is not a primary
identifier of existents in the universe.

Only "existence exists", says Ayn Rand in her definition of the Law of
Identity. Aristotle also identified the concept of the being of
existence, called "Circular Motion", which was the earliest in the
philosophy of science that the concept of the continuous being of
existents had been defined.

There exist only entities in the universe. Existents exist and they are
plural and numerous. Existents exist having integral properties
including being, continuity of being, the potential for change based
upon the properties of the existent, and also many specific properties
that include such as substance and location.

Things exist where they are located. One thing "A" may exist here at
this location, and another thing "B" may exist over there at that other
location. They exist apart from one another at a distance, and they may
be separated by a multiple of the diameter of the one that has been
selected to be a standard reference for measuring the sizes of other
things.

What exists where there are no existents? Nothing.

The universe, I might add, is a continuing plurality of existents, and
only existents exist in the universe. There are no "nothings", only
somethings.

The primary issue in the philosophy of science is the existence of
something versus the existence of nothing. That divides science and
philosophy into two distinct camps: the philosophy of Aristotle (primacy
of existence, e.g., existing knowable entities and materials) and the
philosophy of Plato (primacy of consciousness, e.g., unknowable
approximations of ideals and forms).

The advocates of "nothing" have been appearing in scientific literature
to be touting theories of, for example, "curved space" and "energetic
space" to explain the radiant and attractive effects of gravity. Their
theories purport that no existents exist as causes of gravity in the
"space" that they claim has properties that are the cause of gravity.

The advocates of "something" have built up the greatest amount by far of
the identifications of existents in the universe, and they have
identified the existence and properties of metals, electrons, stars,
planets, relationships of the properties of existents, and living
beings, for example.

Something exists - and nothing does not exist.

Ralph Hertle

Roger Halstead wrote:
Can any one define "nothing"?

[ text omitted ]



Roger:

You might want to check the definitions and explanations that have been
offered in the Philosophy of Objectivism, from Ayn Rand, and also by
Aristotle.

See the definitions for universe, existence, existent, entity, and
something, for example.

The concept of "nothing" only exists based upon the concept of
"something". "Nothing is a dependent concept, and it is not a primary
identifier of existents in the universe.

Only "existence exists", says Ayn Rand in her definition of the Law of
Identity. Aristotle also identified the concept of the being of
existence, called "Circular Motion", which was the earliest in the
philosophy of science that the concept of the continuous being of
existents had been defined.

There exist only entities in the universe. Existents exist and they are
plural and numerous. Existents exist having integral properties
including being, continuity of being, the potential for change based
upon the properties of the existent, and also many specific properties
that include such as substance and location.

Things exist where they are located. One thing "A" may exist here at
this location, and another thing "B" may exist over there at that other
location. They exist apart from one another at a distance, and they may
be separated by a multiple of the diameter of the one that has been
selected to be a standard reference for measuring the sizes of other
things.

What exists where there are no existents? Nothing.

The universe, I might add, is a continuing plurality of existents, and
only existents exist in the universe. There are no "nothings", only
somethings.

The primary issue in the philosophy of science is the existence of
something versus the existence of nothing. That divides science and
philosophy into two distinct camps: the philosophy of Aristotle (primacy
of existence, e.g., existing knowable entities and materials) and the
philosophy of Plato (primacy of consciousness, e.g., unknowable
approximations of ideals and forms).

The advocates of "nothing" have been appearing in scientific literature
to be touting theories of, for example, "curved space" and "energetic
space" to explain the radiant and attractive effects of gravity. Their
theories purport that no existents exist as causes of gravity in the
"space" that they claim has properties that are the cause of gravity.

The advocates of "something" have built up the greatest amount by far of
the identifications of existents in the universe, and they have
identified the existence and properties of metals, electrons, stars,
planets, relationships of the properties of existents, and living
beings, for example.

Something exists - and nothing does not exist.

Ralph Hertle

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:32:33 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:
Now we are beginning to get some whe-))
Some one actually understands the problem.

"Bill Nunnelee" wrote in message...
thlink.net...

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:05:15 GMT, pinkling
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:20:57 GMT in
, Roger Halstead
graced the world with this thought:

The dictionary defines it, but in reality we don't even have a concept
of nothing unless some one can come up with a definition I've not
seen

So the definition in the dictionary wasn't good enough, or what?

Nope it isn't.

Basically they define it as what it is not, not what it is and my old
college prof would never have let me get away with something like
that..

Nothing def: "Something that does not exist." They are defining it
in terms of itself. "Something" that does not exist. What doesn't
exist?..."Something".

We really don't have a concept for nothing as we always have to use an
incomplete definition by defining it as "something", or in terms of
itself.

The closest I've seen is Nothing "The absolute absence of everything".
Again, it's defined in terms of what it is not.

I'm looking for a real definition, or at least a better one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Nonsense. Many opposites are defined that way. Cold is the absence of

Not nonsense at all...it goes far beyond that.
Cold is the absence of heat is really an analogy and is a relative
term. Cold or rather temperature can be measured.
Temperature is defined by molecular motion.
All these things can be quantified and measured.

heat, dark is the absence of light, silence is the absence of sound, nothing

Again, sound can be quantified and measured as can light.

is the absence of anything. As long as one term can be well defined, its
opposite will be equally well defined.

Only in absolutes and then only in special cases and in general it
leads to circular reasoning. hen there can be nothing in between good
and evil. Only one or the other according to my old philosophy prof.


Bill, i think Roger is looking for more than this. For example,
try using your above method to describe dark and light, black
and white, or even gray to, say, a person who's been blind
since birth.

"Something" and "nothing" would be easy to define in this
respect?

Roger, the idea of "nothing" is truly a difficult concept to
grasp.

Every thing we define is based on what came before. Yet the only way
we can define nothing is basically in terms of itself.

ook how long it took for the world of mathematics
to finally get a zero! And even having a zero can be, well,
a bit unsettling. A case in point would be the answer to...

It was really unsettling when the concept of zero was invented. :-))


"When did the new millennium begin? on January 1, 2000?
or did it start on January 1, 2001? Most people celebrated
it on the former, and most of your science-types partied on
the latter date (the *real* party hounds wasted themselves
on *both* dates g)

No sense wasting a good party:-))


"Nothing" is ultimately a term used to define "something."
There really isn't any such thing as "nothing." Even if you
were to whisk yourself out into intergalactic space, you
could never get so far away from galaxies that you would
not be able to see "something."

But...If space is expanding, then into what is it expanding. That
would be nothing. Nothing is even the absence of space, yet who can
visualize the absence of space without going beyond 4 dimensions..


Space itself cannot be "nothing"... scientists believe that
space is expanding, that it's been expanding for billions of
years since the Big Bang. Can "nothing" expand? If space
can expand, then space must be "something," right?

Twould seem that way.


Now i suppose that from time to time we can become very
acutely aware of some level of "nothing," eg, when we get
those nasty postcards from the bank charging us more of
what we don't have because our checking account is down
to "nothing."

Unfortunately money can also be quantified and measured. Sorta like
the coolant in the radiator. When it gets too low you know there's
gonna be a problem.


And yet there is really only one way to get a true feel for the
definition of "nothing"... that's when, heavens forbid, you
should ever find yourself lying beneath an interstate
overpass with an empty wine bottle next to you... and
somebody's stolen your shoes. Then you might start to
get an inkling, a clue, about what "nothing" really is.

Despair? It's certainly an emotional concept of nothing and probably
the best analogy I've heard so far.


How's that Kristofferson song go? "Freedom's just
another word for *nothing* left to lose..."

And a philosopher to boot:-))

Now, we are beginning to get a handle on the problem.
Sorta like asymtopes...They approach a limit, getting ever closer, but
never quite making it.

Thanks,

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!