The debate "'Nothing' doesn't exist and it is likely that it never has" was started by
December 27, 2015, 4:48 am.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, Alex posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Sosocratese, confident, iiks, sloanstar1000, Alex, FluffiestDrop45, swp16, truth_vs_true, progressive, mandala and 3 visitors agree.
AngryBlogger and 5 visitors disagree.
This excites me.
I've never thought about this, but you are right. having nothing is impossible and doesn't exist.
What I'm claiming is that "nothing" never existed. There are a few definitions for "nothing" that work much better than the traditional interpretation. These have huge implications for the debate about what was before the big bang.
Lawrence Krauss states that the closest to "nothing" that can exist is a state without space, without time, without particles, without waves, without fields, without the laws of nature. This however poses a problem because mathematical rules and other non temporal, non spatial concepts may still exist.
Alex Valentin poses this:
Imagine the surface of a ball. It's a finite space but with no boundary. Then imagine it shrinking down to a point. That would create a closed space-timewith zero radius.
Valentin and Krauss I think have the best definitions, and Valentin's definition would fall very much in line with the concept of a singularity.
Now this is a purely theoretical discussion because we can only see to about 380,000 years after the big bang.
You would suggest that there was no beginning (before which there would have been nothing)? That time is infinite and that inifinity never began, and will never end? This is interesting.... and a bit difficult to comprehend (although, to be honest, I have trouble grasping many simply concepts).
by definition nothing doesn't exist.
The claim here is that the traditional concept of "Nothing" (not anything) doesn't actually exist; that it is unlikely that "nothing" has every existed; that what we call "nothing" is a philosophical concept only which has little basis in how we understand the universe to function.