Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Something And Nothing (nt)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by nåte on May 1, 1999 08:17:34 UTC

: : : : .Something and nothing are not opposites, yet they both specify quantity, like zero and not-zero. : In math zero and infinity are opposites in the number system, whereas zero and not-zero are not opposites, but they are still numbers or a set of numbers. They are the same thing.

: On another level. In Hinduism all things come in threes. In Taoism, all things come in pairs, yin and yang. In Judaism, all things are one. Yet the one, the two and the three are all the same. For example, the yin and the yang are the opposites of a third thing. Just as in Hinduism you have the observer, the observed and the means to observe, the three things which include the opposites and the in between. Or in superstring theory, you have the open string and its two ends. The ends are the opposite ends of the string. So its one, two and three things at the same time. : even the closed string which has no end is 1,2 & 3. The string, inside it and outside it. In fact duality says that the inside and the outside of the string are inverses of each other just like zero and infinity.

No.

something and nothing are not zero and infinity.

the state of nothingness should not even be classified as '0', because 0 implies the absence of an implied substance. However, 'something' only implies the presence of finite matter; not infinity as you suggest. There is no such thing as an actual infinity in spacetime, only the 'potential' infinity exists. This may sound like a game of semantics, but I assure you it is not. If I told you that nothingness was zero energy I would be right. However, if I further explained that nothingness was merely a state of 'net zero' because it had both positive and negative charges that canceled and created a state of zero energy I would be wrong. Why? because nothingness is not merely a state of canceling charges. If it were so, it would never have been classified as nothingness in the first place; just would have been 'somethingness' with equal charges that canceled.

It is impossible to have an 'actual' infinity exist within spacetime, because of its implied notion; no beginning or end. Now, it is easy for us to imagine the future as never stopping from an instant in the present, but it is not correct to 'assign' time on an infinite number line with no beginning. Time by definition requires a starting point.

Now that that is aside, let me explain how a quantity of matter in a state of present existence and a particular "state" of nothingness is not in a state of existence.

For matter to be in a state of existence requires boundary conditions. Matter by its physical properties manifests the gravitational field we call time and space. When we talk about nothingness, we are not only speaking in terms that void all matter, but also the field that was in manifestation. (spacetime)

This is a hard concept to grasp, but the absence of spacetime leaves absolute void. No matter, no dimensions, no time! How can any quantum fluctuation ever happen without time?

Nothingness is the opposite of something. The two are infinitely different.

-nåte

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins