Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

The definition of nothing Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I watched a video presented by Dr Lawrence Krauss where he tried to define what nothing is. I laughed when he said there are different kinds of nothing :laugh: what a load of crap.

    Nothing means literally nothing, the absence of anything. He proceeds to claim that a type of nothing is empty space but then refutes his own claim by saying well it's not actually nothing because you have virtual particles and dark energy.

    The he states that if you have gravity and quantum mechanics then even space itself (universes) can pop into existence from nothing. Hmm hello? Gravity and the laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing. If the laws of quantum mechanics can create universes then those laws must have existed before the universe was created. Also gravity can only exist where there is mass. How can there be mass when nothing exists? So he refutes his own claim yet again.

    I think pure nothingness is a physical impossibility. These clowns trying to act like there are different kinds of nothingness.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    I watched a video presented by Dr Lawrence Krauss where he tried to define what nothing is. I laughed when he said there are different kinds of nothing :laugh: what a load of crap.

    Nothing means literally nothing, the absence of anything. He proceeds to claim that a type of nothing is empty space but then refutes his own claim by saying well it's not actually nothing because you have virtual particles and dark energy.
    Well, that sounds like an attept to educate people that something which appears to be nothing, may actually be something, untill...

    (Original post by EternalLight)
    The he states that if you have gravity and quantum mechanics then even space itself (universes) can pop into existence from nothing.
    Yes, that sounds like making mess. I would expect such claim from a religious fanatic desperately trying to convince people that science and religion are not contradictive in their statemetements on the origins of universe.


    (Original post by EternalLight)

    I think pure nothingness is a physical impossibility.
    Parmenides of Elea already said that "Entity exists, and nonentity does not".
    Following that definition, nothing is a pure nonexistence that cannot even be positively though about.

    Parmenides concluded then, that the universe must be the same entity as the thing it was created from, because the only common thing of all things which exist is the fact that they exist. So then, entity is pure existence and the only thing different to it, is nonentity. The only quality of entity is (eternal) existence, so the only difference between the two can be in this particular parameter. Nonentity then, does not exist, so the universe must come from entity, because nonetity does not exist and something cannot be made from nothing.


    (Original post by EternalLight)
    . These clowns trying to act like there are different kinds of nothingness.
    Once I read a book written by some Phd in physics, revieved by some professors, and it contained false statement that space was nothing for pythagoras and he was wrong about it... That was something that discouraged me from studying and getting all those stupid titles before your name, as you have to waste lots of time on exams to join a team of people so incompetent to write something completely inconsistent with the facts, though this should not be possible as there was a whole team of people responsible for the quality of the work. Dammit, if he a scientist is incompetent in a history of philosophy, why then he writes about it?

    That is another reason why I'm not very keen on reading things such as Sientific American. The studies which are incomprehensible for people who are not phisicists and mathemacians, are no doubt important and revealing, but simplified conclusions prepared for amateurs too often look like inept descriptions of Plato's theories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It actually astonishes me that you're into Krauss.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Laws try to explain how things work they don't always work exactly.

    0 = everything plus negative everything

    So technically you can have everything and nothing at the same time
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absence, lacking
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    I watched a video presented by Dr Lawrence Krauss where he tried to define what nothing is. I laughed when he said there are different kinds of nothing :laugh: what a load of crap.

    Nothing means literally nothing, the absence of anything. He proceeds to claim that a type of nothing is empty space but then refutes his own claim by saying well it's not actually nothing because you have virtual particles and dark energy.

    The he states that if you have gravity and quantum mechanics then even space itself (universes) can pop into existence from nothing. Hmm hello? Gravity and the laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing. If the laws of quantum mechanics can create universes then those laws must have existed before the universe was created. Also gravity can only exist where there is mass. How can there be mass when nothing exists? So he refutes his own claim yet again.

    I think pure nothingness is a physical impossibility. These clowns trying to act like there are different kinds of nothingness.
    He has a PHD from MIT and you have...?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by l'etranger)
    It actually astonishes me that you're into Krauss.
    I'm not "into" him. I watched one video of him where he was trying to describe a universe from nothing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    I watched a video presented by Dr Lawrence Krauss where he tried to define what nothing is. I laughed when he said there are different kinds of nothing :laugh: what a load of crap.

    Nothing means literally nothing, the absence of anything. He proceeds to claim that a type of nothing is empty space but then refutes his own claim by saying well it's not actually nothing because you have virtual particles and dark energy.

    The he states that if you have gravity and quantum mechanics then even space itself (universes) can pop into existence from nothing. Hmm hello? Gravity and the laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing. If the laws of quantum mechanics can create universes then those laws must have existed before the universe was created. Also gravity can only exist where there is mass. How can there be mass when nothing exists? So he refutes his own claim yet again.

    I think pure nothingness is a physical impossibility. These clowns trying to act like there are different kinds of nothingness.
    https://youtu.be/xuCn8ux2gbs

    First minute of this video explains everything you ever need to know!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faheemcg9)
    He has a PHD from MIT and you have...?
    If Einstein had followed that way of thinking, he would have ended up as a clerk who contributed nothing to science.

    Those particular statements of Kraus are nothing but making mess in dictionary.
    There was not a word about logical nonentity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faheemcg9)
    He has a PHD from MIT and you have...?
    That is not an argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    I watched a video presented by Dr Lawrence Krauss where he tried to define what nothing is. I laughed when he said there are different kinds of nothing :laugh: what a load of crap.

    Nothing means literally nothing, the absence of anything. He proceeds to claim that a type of nothing is empty space but then refutes his own claim by saying well it's not actually nothing because you have virtual particles and dark energy.

    The he states that if you have gravity and quantum mechanics then even space itself (universes) can pop into existence from nothing. Hmm hello? Gravity and the laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing. If the laws of quantum mechanics can create universes then those laws must have existed before the universe was created. Also gravity can only exist where there is mass. How can there be mass when nothing exists? So he refutes his own claim yet again.

    I think pure nothingness is a physical impossibility. These clowns trying to act like there are different kinds of nothingness.
    Tell that to my bank account back when I was a student!

    Trust me when you've hit £ 0 and try to take money out of an ATM, you get precisely nothing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    I watched a video presented by Dr Lawrence Krauss where he tried to define what nothing is. I laughed when he said there are different kinds of nothing :laugh: what a load of crap.

    Nothing means literally nothing, the absence of anything. He proceeds to claim that a type of nothing is empty space but then refutes his own claim by saying well it's not actually nothing because you have virtual particles and dark energy.

    The he states that if you have gravity and quantum mechanics then even space itself (universes) can pop into existence from nothing. Hmm hello? Gravity and the laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing. If the laws of quantum mechanics can create universes then those laws must have existed before the universe was created. Also gravity can only exist where there is mass. How can there be mass when nothing exists? So he refutes his own claim yet again.

    I think pure nothingness is a physical impossibility. These clowns trying to act like there are different kinds of nothingness.
    Popular science videos probably aren't the best source of information on metaphysics, first off.

    As for different "kinds" of nothingness, the issue I have with that concept is that I don't know of any two propositions about the nature of nothing or nothingness which are not mutually exclusive. One way to argue that there are multiple kinds of nothing is to say that there is "nothing" as in the indeterminate entity and "nothingness" as in the quality of being "nothing", but that's quite weak for obvious reasons.

    I disagree that pure nothingness is impossible, though (and don't see how that follows from the idea that there are not different kinds of nothing, unless you want to claim that monolithic entities don't exist). Actually, several philosophers have equated nothing with something/being; Hegel did so by appealing to the indeterminate nature of both phenomena, for example.

    No one really posits ex nihilo creation unless they are equating being and nothingness, so...I assume he was referring to the uncertainty principle or something in the video, which was not supposed to apply to total ex nihilo creation anyway. In any case, are laws "something" in and of themselves?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    I watched a video presented by Dr Lawrence Krauss where he tried to define what nothing is. I laughed when he said there are different kinds of nothing :laugh: what a load of crap.

    Nothing means literally nothing, the absence of anything. He proceeds to claim that a type of nothing is empty space but then refutes his own claim by saying well it's not actually nothing because you have virtual particles and dark energy.

    The he states that if you have gravity and quantum mechanics then even space itself (universes) can pop into existence from nothing. Hmm hello? Gravity and the laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing. If the laws of quantum mechanics can create universes then those laws must have existed before the universe was created. Also gravity can only exist where there is mass. How can there be mass when nothing exists? So he refutes his own claim yet again.

    I think pure nothingness is a physical impossibility. These clowns trying to act like there are different kinds of nothingness.
    Why are they clowns?

    Also, the book Krauss wrote on this was criticized by a few physicists.

    You seem to be quite into physics btw.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sonechka)
    In any case, are laws "something" in and of themselves?
    Laws are not physical of course but they're the fundamental framework that tells reality how to behave. Without those laws a universe doesn't know how to create itself. Nothingness comes from nothingness.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    Laws are not physical of course but they're the fundamental framework that tells reality how to behave. Without those laws a universe doesn't know how to create itself. Nothingness comes from nothingness.
    So then do laws constitute "something", or (by your definition) ¬nothing?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sonechka)
    In any case, are laws "something" in and of themselves?
    Laws are not physical of course but they're the fundamental framework that tells reality how to behave. Without those laws a universe doesn't know how to create itself. Nothingness comes from nothingness.


    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Why are they clowns?

    Also, the book Krauss wrote on this was criticized by a few physicists.

    You seem to be quite into physics btw.
    He is a clown because he is desperately trying to fill his idea of a universe from nothing but he cannot even decide what nothing is, then when he does finally decided he ignores the laws of physics.

    I enjoy reading about cosmology. I'd be surprised if many physicists would support his idea as passionately.


    (Original post by Sonechka)
    So then do laws constitute "something", or (by your definition) ¬nothing?
    I think the laws are the metaphysical fabric of reality. Reality cannot exist without instructions. An atom doesn't know what to do without laws, space doesn't know how to expand without laws. It stands to reason that the universe itself cannot create itself without a similar instruction manual.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)

    I think the laws are the metaphysical fabric of reality. Reality cannot exist without instructions. An atom doesn't know what to do without laws, space doesn't know how to expand without laws. It stands to reason that the universe itself cannot create itself without a similar instruction manual.
    I don't disagree, but what I'm getting at is whether you think that the existence of laws to which the processes involved in the Universe's earliest expansion adhered (which does not entail the existence of the laws prior to the expansion of the Universe) constitutes the existence of "something." The Universe cannot exist (as-is) without laws, but can laws exist independently and thus entail the absence of nothing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    Laws are not physical of course but they're the fundamental framework that tells reality how to behave. Without those laws a universe doesn't know how to create itself. Nothingness comes from nothingness.




    He is a clown because he is desperately trying to fill his idea of a universe from nothing but he cannot even decide what nothing is, then when he does finally decided he ignores the laws of physics.

    I enjoy reading about cosmology. I'd be surprised if many physicists would support his idea as passionately.




    I think the laws are the metaphysical fabric of reality. Reality cannot exist without instructions. An atom doesn't know what to do without laws, space doesn't know how to expand without laws. It stands to reason that the universe itself cannot create itself without a similar instruction manual.
    Laws aren't always obeyed though. They break down sometimes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Laws aren't always obeyed though. They break down sometimes.
    How so?

    (Original post by Sonechka)
    I don't disagree, but what I'm getting at is whether you think that the existence of laws to which the processes involved in the Universe's earliest expansion adhered (which does not entail the existence of the laws prior to the expansion of the Universe) constitutes the existence of "something." The Universe cannot exist (as-is) without laws, but can laws exist independently and thus entail the absence of nothing?
    Oh I see. Laws are clearly something in my opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EternalLight)
    How so?



    Oh I see. Laws are clearly something in my opinion.
    At singularities.

    :afraid:
 
 
 
Poll
Should gherkins be in burgers?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.