On Nothing in a void.

river said:
But WITHIN the void there is , there are , no objects . In the absolute . The definition from the first paragraph lacks this inclusion of objects .

arfa brane you are only looking at a void in the mathematical model . Not from from absence of any physical thing .
Click to expand...
Yes but the Universe is not a void. A void has no space or time. A void is the absence of space and therefore time.
It depends on how you interpret the term space. But cosmology speaks of the fabric of space, thus is far from being a void. On the contrary, space is filled with "the fabric of space".

Causal Dynamic Triangulation (CDT) is a proposed theory
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
Click to expand...
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Yes but the Universe is not a void. A void has no space or time. A void is the absence of space and therefore time.
It depends on how you interpret the term space. But cosmology speaks of the fabric of space, thus is far from being a void. On the contrary, space is filled with "the fabric of space".

Causal Dynamic Triangulation (CDT) is a proposed theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as this " FABRIC of SPACE " .
 
river said:
Well think about it . What does the " fabric of space " actually mean ? Nobody so far has been able to actually define it , without any objects being in space .
Click to expand...
Do you also disagree with the biblical account of ; In the beginning God created the heavens?

Apparently the first physical elements were created from the cooling of the heavens, no?
 
Write4U said:
Do you also disagree with the biblical account of ; In the beginning God created the heavens?

Apparently the first physical elements were created from the cooling of the heavens, no?
Click to expand...

Disagree with the biblical account .

Not cooling of the heavens , whatever that means , but cooling of plasma energy .
 
river said:
But WITHIN the void there is , there are , no objects . In the absolute . The definition from the first paragraph lacks this inclusion of objects .
Click to expand...
There are no objects because objects have structure. The definition of a void as structureless is sufficient; being structureless means having nothing to identify or distinguish. One or more boundaries introduces structure.
 
arfa brane said:
There are no objects because objects have structure. The definition of a void as structureless is sufficient; being structureless means having nothing to identify or distinguish. One or more boundaries introduces structure.
Click to expand...

So we can't compare nothing to a void .
 
river said:
So we can't compare nothing to a void .
Click to expand...
You can compare a boundary to what's inside it, though. You can distinguish "inside" and "outside".

Besides, if I say "here's some nothing", and "here's some void", I need to be more precise about what I mean, if I want to compare them.
 
Last edited:
Quantum physics indicated that "nothing" is not a state that exists. There are always quantum fluctuations.
 
river said:
Because it has outside boundries .
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand.

A void has nothing, a boundary is a boundary.

We deal with an unbounded "absolute" void by saying it's a contradiction; a bounded void is like containing that contradiction. This "containing" isn't something we assign to the interior, it's more natural to assign it to the boundary. What boundary logic assumes is that you can distinguish inside from outside, that's really all it needs.

Any logic has to have assumptions--something has to be true a priori, and have a false complement.
 
arfa brane said:
I think you misunderstand.

A void has nothing, a boundary is a boundary.

We deal with an unbounded "absolute" void by saying it's a contradiction; a bounded void is like containing that contradiction. This "containing" isn't something we assign to the interior, it's more natural to assign it to the boundary. What boundary logic assumes is that you can distinguish inside from outside, that's really all it needs.

Any logic has to have assumptions--something has to be true a priori, and have a false complement.
Click to expand...

Mathematics again .

How would you describe a void in space ?
 
river said:
Mathematics again .
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but with any logical system you have to define things--a background, "things" in a foreground, a total space etc. You want precise definitions, not ambiguous or contradictory ones.
How would you describe a void in space ?
Click to expand...
As being fundamentally different to a solitary void, or a void by itself. It has to depend on how space is defined.

The thing is, a void is zero-dimensional, there is no concept of a dimension because distance is not defined. It has no motion, no relativity, because both those things imply differences, a void is "difference-less".
It doesn't even have points in it, therefore, because there is no way to refer to such a thing as a point which is "different", or distinguishable.
 
So far no one could observe nothing. As soon as you observe, it becomes something. A part of space can be made free from atoms etc, but should we call that part as having nothing? It would still have some form of electromagnetic presence.
 
arfa brane said:
Not necessarily, but with any logical system you have to define things--a background, "things" in a foreground, a total space etc. You want precise definitions, not ambiguous or contradictory ones.As being fundamentally different to a solitary void, or a void by itself. It has to depend on how space is defined.

The thing is, a void is zero-dimensional, there is no concept of a dimension because distance is not defined. It has no motion, no relativity, because both those things imply differences, a void is "difference-less".
It doesn't even have points in it, therefore, because there is no way to refer to such a thing as a point which is "different", or distinguishable.
Click to expand...

Nonsense
 
Hayden said:
So far no one could observe nothing. As soon as you observe, it becomes something. A part of space can be made free from atoms etc, but should we call that part as having nothing? It would still have some form of electromagnetic presence.
Click to expand...

Never will observe nothing , simply not possible .

Why ? How would any space free from any object have an electromagnetic presence ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top