On Nothing in a void.

[RainbowSingularity]

Well the title is a mere attention getter.
I want to discuss nothing in general rather than placing it in a void.
The subject of nothing often comes up and yet it could be argued that nothing does not in fact exist.
Some say before everything there was nothing, some say there is nothing on the outside of the universe, some say they have nothing to say rather than to say something.
I ask what is nothing? How should it be defined?
Can nothing exist and does it take up space?
Is there nothing in a void or is a void nothing.
Can you say something about nothing.
Alex

what you know that you once did not know is nothing.
what is nothing that you do not know is something

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Best of luck...

"Tao cannot be defined, but Tao can be know."

Wiki tried.....

Tao or Dao (/daʊ/, DOW; fromChinese: 道; pinyin: Dào, [tâu] ( listen)) is a Chinese word signifying 'way', 'path', 'route', 'road', 'choose', 'key' or sometimes more loosely 'doctrine', 'principle' or 'holistic science' [1] . Within the context of traditional Chinese philosophy and religion, the Tao is the intuitive knowing of "life" that cannot be grasped full-heartedly as just a concept but is known nonetheless through actual living experience of one's everyday being.

I did that already.☺

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

what you know that you once did not know is nothing.
what is nothing that you do not know is something

I agree with all that you have said except the first and the second sentence.
Alex

 

[Bowser]

I did that already.

 

[birch]

i've learned through this universe that nothing and non-existence is better than something because that something could be hideous/repulsive.

 

[danshawen]

Well I think of it this way.
There is perhaps an infinite selection of trajectories that pass through every point and each point no matter how small a seperation from its neighbour will see a geometrically infinite number of tradjectories and along each tradjectory I suspect that there are particles rushing along at C..light for one maybe nutrinos even the background radiation...make a list of possibilitiesas to what may rush by.

Think how many different trajectories and know that each must carry stuff.

It is difficult to think this way but as I said when you mark out a small cube with all possible trajectories and then realise not one will go unused you will wonder how all that stuff can fit. Limit it to photons and build from there..they come from every direction even if your are inside in your room...and then nutrinos..billions from all directions each following a single tradjectory...so for me it is impossible to imagine nothing for it is likely that nothing actually contains a little piece of everything from everywhere.

I know science does not need an eather but in saying that I think one assumes there is nothing physical in nothing well it seems there would be...call it something other than an eather but I hope you can imagine all I sugggest.
alex

What version of "nothing" is it that gives away its scale, for an uncertainty principle to operate?

How large or how small is "nothing", if there really is "nothing" to compare it to, and "nothing" also to observe a comparison?

Even if you eliminate all the photons and neutrinos, the energy a passing gravity wave may go unnoticed without "something" to be affected by it.

 

[Musika]

i've learned through this universe that nothing and non-existence is better than something because that something could be hideous/repulsive.

If you want qualify "nothing" as being better than "something", it must be because it has that special something.

 

[Michael 345]

What version of "nothing" is it that gives away its scale, for an uncertainty principle to operate?

How large or how small is "nothing", if there really is "nothing" to compare it to, and "nothing" also to observe a comparison?

Even if you eliminate all the photons and neutrinos, the energy a passing gravity wave may go unnoticed without "something" to be affected by it.

Within the boundaries of our Universe there is no size region which could be said to contain nothing

Outside of the boundaries my gut feeling is that there would be a Total Absolute Void and for me that would be a space where nothing existed unto infinity until our Universe intruded into a portion

If a Infinite Total Absolute Void with our Universe expanding into it exist would that impress you as being nothing?

Or consider mentally extracting our Universe leaving nothing behind inside the Total Absolute Void which extends to infinity?

In imagination that for me would be a nothing

 

[Write4U]

Within the boundaries of our Universe there is no size region which could be said to contain nothing

Outside of the boundaries my gut feeling is that there would be a Total Absolute Void and for me that would be a space where nothing existed unto infinity until our Universe intruded into a portion

If a Infinite Total Absolute Void with our Universe expanding into it exist would that impress you as being nothing?

Or consider mentally extracting our Universe leaving nothing behind inside the Total Absolute Void which extends to infinity?

In imagination that for me would be a nothing

I like your perspective, and propose that such a condition would also be timeless.
But can a void be both infinitely large and infinitely small?
What about a singularity with perhaps infinite potential appearing in such a condition?

Hehe, a thought came to mind: can a total void still have areas of density?

I can imagine a form of an instant collapse of a portion of the timeless void and that this collapse was causal to a singularity with near infinite energetic potential which, rebounding from the collapse, generated a mega-quantum event, releasing the compressed energy as our BB........and then there was something....

 

[birch]

Outside of the boundaries my gut feeling is that there would be a Total Absolute Void and for me that would be a space where nothing existed unto infinity until our Universe intruded into a portion

that's one of the dumbest conjecture i've ever read. if that's your gut feeling, those guts are naive. what makes you think that this would be the only universe and everything else is a void unto infinity? where would this universe and it's properties originate from? it's not even remotely logical or even rational.

we can only see a small portion of this universe and you propose that everything else is a void, except this universe? and you laugh at woo?

you are pulling everyone's leg, right?

I can imagine a form of an instant collapse of a portion of the timeless void and that this collapse was causal to a singularity with near infinite energetic potential which, rebounding from the collapse, generated a mega-quantum event, releasing the compressed energy as our BB........and then there was something....

this is also more wooy than ghosts, alien abductions etc.

right. so a singularity compressed and then exploded to just create this one universe from an infinite void and there is nothing else out there ( at all ) except just infinite void and, of course, this universe with it's obviously relative (meaning it's finite) universal laws.

hubris? center of everything ideal?

 

[Michael 345]

I like your perspective, and propose that such a condition would also be timeless.
But can a void be both infinitely large and infinitely small?
What about a singularity with perhaps infinite potential appearing in such a condition?

Agree timeless for two reasons
1/ TIME do not exist even in this Universe
2/ What is commonly referred to as time is a abstract measurement of change occuring on a physical object. Since no objects in a Total Infinite Void - no time

Using a arbitrary measurement system I would contend only large because I am thinking INFINITE unmeasurable (which does not make it small however)

Well from the Science I read about it seems it is impossible for a Total Infinite Void to exist hence yes it would be possible for singularity to appear BUT since Scientists say a Total Infinite Void cannot exist it would be their job to name the the state which would allow this

Hehe, a thought came to mind: can a total void still have areas of density?

I would say no

I can imagine a form of an instant collapse of a portion of the timeless void and that this collapse was causal to a singularity with near infinite energetic potential which, rebounding from the collapse, generated a mega-quantum event, releasing the compressed energy as our BB........and then there was something....

Praise to your imagination BUT again my thoughts of a Total Infinite Void would not allow such a situation
Since there is stuff it is self evident Total Infinite Void is automatically ruled out

And so we are left with - WHERE HAS ALL THIS STUFF COME FROM?

Strangely it is the same question atheist ask of theist with the minor difference being when Science say stuff has always existed and theist say god has always existed theist give the stuff sentience and personality along with the ability to create more stuff with sentience

 

[Michael 345]

what makes you think that this would be the only universe and everything else is a void?

What makes you think there are other universes?

Obviously possible but not a given

where would this universe and it's properties originate from?

Are you saying this Universe obtained its properties from other Universes?

From a cut and paste from a reply post to Write4U
Since there is stuff it is self evident Total Infinite Void is automatically ruled out

And so we are left with - WHERE HAS ALL THIS STUFF COME FROM?

Strangely it is the same question atheist ask of theist with the minor difference being when Science say stuff has always existed and theist say god has always existed theist give the stuff sentience and personality along with the ability to create more stuff with sentience

it's not even remotely logical or even rational.

Ok - you have a view OK

we can only see a small portion of this universe and you propose that everything else is a void, except this universe? and you laugh at woo?

you are pulling everyone's leg, right?

I would agree we can only detect a portion of this Universe and we cannot see any other Universes so it would be speculation that

1. We are a single Universe in a otherwise Total Infinite Void or
2. There are other Universes - we are not alone (single) Universe

Without evidence I speculate 1. Feel free to speculate 1or 2 or propose others

YES l laugh at Woo Woo

right. so a singularity compressed and then exploded to just create this one universe from an infinite void and there is nothing else out there ( at all ) except just infinite void and, of course, this universe with it's obviously relative (meaning it's finite) universal laws.

hubris? center of everything ideal

For me SPECULATION

And again

so a singularity compressed and then exploded to just create this one universe from an infinite void

a Total Infinite Void has been ruled out by Science so it is up to Science to give a label to what existed before the Big Bang

If you have evidence to the contrary and know there is more Universes out there feel free to share

 

[Vociferous]

No thing. An absence defined by an expectation.
There's also context. "Nothing in an empty box."
A limit to the expectation in terms of volume.

 

[Write4U]

And so we are left with - WHERE HAS ALL THIS STUFF COME FROM?

Does it need to be 'stuff'?
Assuming that a limited (bounded) void must have geometrical fractal properties but still is totally permittive of any potential to become expressed as a value or as
patterns , even as "stuff".

Why not Potential energy (BOHM) ? An as yet "enfolded potential" in a finite Wholeness (a geometry), and unfolding in a orderly hierarchy of becoming "expressed in our reality", by a form of fractal mathematical imperatives which we are able to translate in mathematical terms as values and patterns which are all around us in a near infinite variety of expressions. Humans are a great example of the near infinite potentials becoming expressed in reality.

This why I question the assumption that expressed potentials of "stuff" was a necessary precondition to the BB.
IMO, the BB ceated the stuff, wich have values and often self-form patterns, from nebulae to humans.

NEBULAE: WHAT ARE THEY AND WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?

Article written: 24 Dec , 2015
Updated: 24 Dec , 2015by Matt Williams
A nebula is a truly wondrous thing to behold. Named after the Latin word for “cloud”, nebulae are not only massive clouds of dust, hydrogen and helium gas, and plasma; they are also often “stellar nurseries” – i.e. the place where stars are born. And for centuries, distant galaxies were often mistaken for these massive clouds.

https://www.universetoday.com/61103/what-is-a-nebula/

Does the potential for life not already begin to form inside a nebula?

CDT (Loll) is a serious contender for explaining how the fabric of space itself "unfolds" in a fractal dynamical form, spacetime.

 

[NotEinstein]

Assuming that a limited (bounded) void must have geometrical fractal properties

It does not; for example, this limited (bounded) void could be spherical.

but still is totally permittive of any potential to become expressed as a value

(Mathematical) values cannot be (or become) physical; what do you mean by "expressed as a value"?

or a patterns , even as "stuff".

A potential typically doesn't express itself as a pattern. Also, since a potential is physical (or at least an expression of something physical) and can store energy, there are no (non-zero/non-constant?) potentials in a void.

 

[Michael 345]

And so we are left with - WHERE HAS ALL THIS STUFF COME FROM?

Does it need to be 'stuff'?

The STUFF I am implying - yes it needs/has to be stuff

Note - I did not imply it came "from stuff"

The stuff is the stuff of the Universe and apart from the solid stuff would include the detectable stuff such as gravity and magmatism (not normally classed as stuff more as properties of stuff)

I preempt objections about "what about.....?" by lumping them in together with the objects of which they are properties

Why not Potential energy

Why not indeed? And here we go down the rabbit hole

Do where did the potential energy come from?

Cut and paste coming up (with some changes)

Strangely the same question atheist ask of theist - who made god? theist can ask Scientists where did your potential energy come from?
The minor difference being when Science say stuff (or potential energy) has always existed, theist say god has always existed
However theist give their stuff (god) sentience and personality along with the ability to create more stuff with sentience
Scientists just stick with stuff

As I have mentioned Scientists have yet to give a definition of conditions prior to the Big Bang

 

[Write4U]

It does not; for example, this limited (bounded) void could be spherical.

Still a fractal.

In mathematics, a fractal is an abstract object used to describe and simulate naturally occurring objects. Artificially created fractals commonly exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales.[1] It is also known as expanding symmetry or evolving symmetry

Likewise, if the radius of a sphere is doubled, its volume scales by eight, which is two (the ratio of the new to the old radius) to the power of three (the dimension that the sphere resides in).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

(Mathematical) values cannot be (or become) physical; what do you mean by "expressed as a value"?

The color white, to name one. It is made up from a ratio of three distinct other colors ( refractive values).

Index of Refraction
MaterialIndex
Vacuum1.00000
Air at STP1.00029
Ice1.31
Water at 20 C1.33
Acetone1.36
Ethyl alcohol1.36
Sugar solution(30%)1.38
Fluorite1.433
Fused quartz1.46
Glycerine1.473
Sugar solution (80%)1.49
Typical crown glass1.52
Crown glasses1.52-1.62
Spectacle crown, C-11.523
Sodium chloride1.54
Polystyrene1.55-1.59
Carbon disulfide1.63
Flint glasses1.57-1.75
Heavy flint glass1.65
Extra dense flint, EDF-31.7200
Methylene iodide1.74
Sapphire1.77
Rare earth flint1.7-1.84
Lanthanum flint1.82-1.98
Arsenic trisulfide glass2.04
Diamond2.417
Refraction discussionOptical glasses
Index

Tables
HyperPhysics***** Light and Vision

Potential is an inherent abstract mathematical ability of all things.

A potential typically doesn't express itself as a pattern. Also, since a potential is physical (or at least an expression of something physical) and can store energy, there are no (non-zero/non-constant?) potentials in a void.

I must respectfully disagree,
a) potential can exist as a latent (abstract) ability
b) not all potential becomes reality
c) but all relality is, was, and will be preceeded by potential.
d) statistical date proves the potential as parsimonious self-assembling formations.
e) hence evolution.

 

[Write4U]

Do where did the potential energy come from?

Geometry. Vectors, tensors within the Wholeness.. Remember the universal functions are dynamical processing of values which are mathematically compatible and those which are not...already a form of natural seletion. It took some 14 billion years for this process to produce a a result in the human form, among countless other resulys or tendencies.

 

[NotEinstein]

Still a fractal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

You really need to stop lying about what a fractal is. A sphere is not a fractal; this has been explained to you numerous times, and yet you continue to willfully spread this misinformation. You are extremely intellectually dishonest; please stop.

The color white, to name one. It is made up from a ratio of three distinct other colors ( refractive values).

Please give me a bucket full of "the color white", as you are suggesting that colors are physical. Additionally, a color is not a mathematical value, so your argument is irrelevant anyway.

 

[Write4U]

You really need to stop lying about what a fractal is. A sphere is not a fractal; this has been explained to you numerous times, and yet you continue to willfully spread this misinformation. You are extremely intellectually dishonest; please stop.

Ever looked a a Mandelgrot fratal. It has a perfectly circular interior, which I find remarkable.

Please give me a bucket full of "the color white", as you are suggesting that colors are physical. Additionally, a color is not a mathematical value, so your argument is irrelevant anyway.

Snow.for one. But I was not suggesting that all expressions of color are the same. Here you are talking about additive colors, not the colors of white in the EM frequencies variety. All you need is a triangular crystal to separate the colors and assign values to them. Hz.

Its what gives diamonds their decorative values.

Hameroff, Tegmark, and LIvio believe we see shades of all colos as a wave function consisting of ratios between three fundamental frequencies. The rainbow is but one example.
I would surely call that a pattern.