Define Nothing

Bert:

The fallacy of that argument is that the scientists set forth the
mathematical theory of the curvature of space, which is a 3D graphical
representation of the gravitational flux of gravitational existents that
is radiated from all matter according to the amount of mass. They set
forth that theory as an idea, that is, as an epistemological existent,
and they then claimed that the curvature of empty space, was a physical
thing, that is, a metaphysical existent. That is impossible and is a
fallacy of logic, specifically, a non-sequitur. They also reject
Aristotelian logic and the requirement of logical proof, and that is
quite convenient for them. They have not proved the physical existence
of the existent that they claim is the curved spacetime, and the
mathematical entity that they claim is real has never been found in
physical matter. Some scientists actually claim that the empty space
that has no physical existents has the property of gravitational
curvature and is thus energetic. But, nothing can have no properties,
and that is impossible. What the modernist scientists refuse to
acknowledge is that there may be actual physical existents that are
radiated from matter, and that traverse the universe causing the
dimensional accelerations of matter towards matter. They have never
discovered the actual cause or mechanism of gravity, only the
measurements of the amounts of the mass and accelerations, for example.
They refuse to accept the axiom of science that physical existents
exist, and that physical existents have functioning properties, e.g.,
that cause gravity. Instead, they want to promote a mystical explanation
that says that nothing causes the mutual gravitational attraction of
matter. Or that non-physical mathematical relationships cause the mutual
gravitational attraction of matter.

Ralph Hertle





G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

The void of space is the most important part of the universe(Einstien
said that) Casmir proved waves are intrinsic to space. QM theory uses
the word "fabric" of space. We have spacetime geometry . There is no
gravity free region of spacetime. Minkowski had much to say how
spacetime influences the motion of objects. In spacetime it
takes away a straight line for space will curve slightly all objects
going through it.That is the reason its said to be "geodesic" Space and
time fit so well in our minds. There is a sameness. Bert PS It is
gravity that creates "spacetime" imagine me almost forgeting to mention
that???

Roger Halstead wrote:

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.

OK - After following this thread for a week or so, I'll toss in my two
cents.

The answer depends upon whether we are talking *physically* or
*metaphysically*.

The correct interpretation of the big bang is that the *universe* itself is
expanding as opposed to an explosion expanding into the universe. Since
the universe is everything that *is*, *nothing* is what is outside the
universe, ie, nothing. That is the *physical* interpretation.

Now let's look at the question *metaphysically*. Even *nothing* is
"something* (ie, nothing), so no thing (two words) is *nothing*, since we
can label it! Therefore, there is no such thing as *nothing*. We can't
talk about things that aren't since if we can talk about them, they exist
is *some* way.

All of which begs the question - Will there ever be a Grand Unified Theory
linking physics and metaphysics? I leave that answer for minds greater
than my feeble one...

TBC I hope.
--
# I prefer GNU/Linux to Windows because
# I prefer self-empowerment to slavery.
# Make the switch to open source and free
# yourself from the Microsoft monopoly.

Roger Halstead wrote:

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.

OK - After following this thread for a week or so, I'll toss in my two
cents.

The answer depends upon whether we are talking *physically* or
*metaphysically*.

The correct interpretation of the big bang is that the *universe* itself is
expanding as opposed to an explosion expanding into the universe. Since
the universe is everything that *is*, *nothing* is what is outside the
universe, ie, nothing. That is the *physical* interpretation.

Now let's look at the question *metaphysically*. Even *nothing* is
"something* (ie, nothing), so no thing (two words) is *nothing*, since we
can label it! Therefore, there is no such thing as *nothing*. We can't
talk about things that aren't since if we can talk about them, they exist
is *some* way.

All of which begs the question - Will there ever be a Grand Unified Theory
linking physics and metaphysics? I leave that answer for minds greater
than my feeble one...

TBC I hope.
--
# I prefer GNU/Linux to Windows because
# I prefer self-empowerment to slavery.
# Make the switch to open source and free
# yourself from the Microsoft monopoly.

Roger:

See my post regarding something and nothing of 9-30-03, with the subject
line, " Define Nothing [defn. of something]".


Roger Halstead wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:36:02 GMT,

[ text omitted ]
From a philosophical approach nothing when *within* our universe has
been pretty well defined..
The problem comes in trying to define it outside our universe.

[ text omitted ]
But we have to go outside the universe to really gain an idea as to
nothing. It's not empty space...it's less than that...or is it
another dimension?

[ text omitted ]
To me, it seems as if philosophy does a better job at defining in this
case than does science.

[ text omitted ]



I clipped out the text of mine that you had replied to. I infer that
there are questions in what you say, and I'll attempt some answers or at
least some relevant discussion of the topics that you mention.

The important focus for life, philosophy, and for science is to focus
upon existence, that is, the existence of existents.

To preface my remarks I want to say that the universe, or existence, is,
of course, a continuing plurality of existents. There is only existence.
That's all there is.

Get rid of the double negative in the conceptual identifications that
you use, for example, you can say that existence is existing. However,
it makes no sense to say that nothing is not existing, however true that
statement is in the realm of ideas. Keep your focus on the something,
not on nothing. It is also impossible to have a concept of something
that exists only because it is not nothing - only something(s) exist
because they exist.

By the same token it is impossible to get outside of the universe, that
is, outside of everything that exists. To be outside of existence is to
not exist. It is impossible to be both an existent and a non-existent at
the same time, place, or respect (Law of Contradiction, Aris.). It is
impossible for an existent to not exist.

There is no origin for the universe, and there are no temporal or
spatial boundaries for the universe. There is not 'outside' - there is
only existence that continues to exist. Existence is existing. That's
all there is. Existence continues to exist, and all the science and
activities of man that have ever existed prove the fact of the existence
and of the continuity of existence. Existence just keeps on being, and
it keeps on being what it is. Every existent has the properties of
existence, substance, continuity, the potentials of change according to
the properties and nature of the entity, relationships to other
entities, and also, location. Things are what they are where they are.

To reiterate. The only focus that one can have is upon existence. One
cannot conceive of anything that has no existence or that has no facts.

The reason why science, notably the cosmological and sub-atomic
sciences, have faltered is that they have given attention to what does
not exist, nothing, rather than to what exists, something. Some
scientists, for example, claim that light is a result of waves of
nothing produced in a non-existing space. They reject the idea that
actual existents may be the cause of light. That philosophical
disposition prevents them from doing further work and also discovering
the cause of gravity. Some scientists believe, for example, that gravity
is the result of curvatures in a mathematical but not physical ether
called spacetime. They reject the idea that actual physical radiant
entities are produced by matter and that collide with other matter and
that cause mutual accelerations. The discovery of gravity may take a
thousand years. It may take that long for those scientists to recognize
that only actual existents exist in the universe, and that the entities
have knowable and causal properties that result in the dimensional
translations of the positions of the entities. The mathematical ethers
of spacetime are epistemological existents, that means ideas, and they
are not metaphysically (same as physically) existing entities. To focus
on the ideas that identify things is just fine, however, to claim that
the ideas of spacetime are physically existing entities is to claim that
nothing has properties, and that actual existents do not, or that the
properties of physical entities will be selectively ignored.

Science has faltered because it has attempted to focus on nothing, has
focused on epistemological existents claiming their physical reality,
and because it has not focussed upon, and identified, the actual
properties of physical existents. Science has its carrot: the
discoveries of the natures of substance, light, and gravity, however, it
has focussed instead upon nothing, inappropriate ideas, incorrect logic,
and upon non-physical mysticism.

(Btw, other sciences, e.g., biology, medicine, chemistry, and more, do
not have all the same problems as do the cosmological sciences and
sub-atomic physics. The causes are psychological and moral, however,
that is for another post.)

The philosophical issue is the opposition of the notion of 'nothing'
against the 'something', that is, the metaphysical ideas of Plato versus
those of Aristotle. All of the above discussion is philosophy, not
physics, and philosophy, that is, that of Ayn Rand's Objectivism and of
Aristotle's basic concepts, is a science. (Other philosophies, e.g.,
religions, may not claim to be sciences.)

Existence is the continuation of the being of all existents.
The universe is everything.


Ralph Hertle

Roger:

See my post regarding something and nothing of 9-30-03, with the subject
line, " Define Nothing [defn. of something]".


Roger Halstead wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:36:02 GMT,

[ text omitted ]
From a philosophical approach nothing when *within* our universe has
been pretty well defined..
The problem comes in trying to define it outside our universe.

[ text omitted ]
But we have to go outside the universe to really gain an idea as to
nothing. It's not empty space...it's less than that...or is it
another dimension?

[ text omitted ]
To me, it seems as if philosophy does a better job at defining in this
case than does science.

[ text omitted ]



I clipped out the text of mine that you had replied to. I infer that
there are questions in what you say, and I'll attempt some answers or at
least some relevant discussion of the topics that you mention.

The important focus for life, philosophy, and for science is to focus
upon existence, that is, the existence of existents.

To preface my remarks I want to say that the universe, or existence, is,
of course, a continuing plurality of existents. There is only existence.
That's all there is.

Get rid of the double negative in the conceptual identifications that
you use, for example, you can say that existence is existing. However,
it makes no sense to say that nothing is not existing, however true that
statement is in the realm of ideas. Keep your focus on the something,
not on nothing. It is also impossible to have a concept of something
that exists only because it is not nothing - only something(s) exist
because they exist.

By the same token it is impossible to get outside of the universe, that
is, outside of everything that exists. To be outside of existence is to
not exist. It is impossible to be both an existent and a non-existent at
the same time, place, or respect (Law of Contradiction, Aris.). It is
impossible for an existent to not exist.

There is no origin for the universe, and there are no temporal or
spatial boundaries for the universe. There is not 'outside' - there is
only existence that continues to exist. Existence is existing. That's
all there is. Existence continues to exist, and all the science and
activities of man that have ever existed prove the fact of the existence
and of the continuity of existence. Existence just keeps on being, and
it keeps on being what it is. Every existent has the properties of
existence, substance, continuity, the potentials of change according to
the properties and nature of the entity, relationships to other
entities, and also, location. Things are what they are where they are.

To reiterate. The only focus that one can have is upon existence. One
cannot conceive of anything that has no existence or that has no facts.

The reason why science, notably the cosmological and sub-atomic
sciences, have faltered is that they have given attention to what does
not exist, nothing, rather than to what exists, something. Some
scientists, for example, claim that light is a result of waves of
nothing produced in a non-existing space. They reject the idea that
actual existents may be the cause of light. That philosophical
disposition prevents them from doing further work and also discovering
the cause of gravity. Some scientists believe, for example, that gravity
is the result of curvatures in a mathematical but not physical ether
called spacetime. They reject the idea that actual physical radiant
entities are produced by matter and that collide with other matter and
that cause mutual accelerations. The discovery of gravity may take a
thousand years. It may take that long for those scientists to recognize
that only actual existents exist in the universe, and that the entities
have knowable and causal properties that result in the dimensional
translations of the positions of the entities. The mathematical ethers
of spacetime are epistemological existents, that means ideas, and they
are not metaphysically (same as physically) existing entities. To focus
on the ideas that identify things is just fine, however, to claim that
the ideas of spacetime are physically existing entities is to claim that
nothing has properties, and that actual existents do not, or that the
properties of physical entities will be selectively ignored.

Science has faltered because it has attempted to focus on nothing, has
focused on epistemological existents claiming their physical reality,
and because it has not focussed upon, and identified, the actual
properties of physical existents. Science has its carrot: the
discoveries of the natures of substance, light, and gravity, however, it
has focussed instead upon nothing, inappropriate ideas, incorrect logic,
and upon non-physical mysticism.

(Btw, other sciences, e.g., biology, medicine, chemistry, and more, do
not have all the same problems as do the cosmological sciences and
sub-atomic physics. The causes are psychological and moral, however,
that is for another post.)

The philosophical issue is the opposition of the notion of 'nothing'
against the 'something', that is, the metaphysical ideas of Plato versus
those of Aristotle. All of the above discussion is philosophy, not
physics, and philosophy, that is, that of Ayn Rand's Objectivism and of
Aristotle's basic concepts, is a science. (Other philosophies, e.g.,
religions, may not claim to be sciences.)

Existence is the continuation of the being of all existents.
The universe is everything.


Ralph Hertle