This is so fucking stupid.

Overwatch said
This is so fucking stupid.

I agree. :D

Sounds stupid, but face it. When have you ever encountered nothing?

Turns out, even when you take away all quantified elements, from particles to waves and anything that consists of matter. You still have mass.

Nothing doesn't exist, the base form of the universe is still something.

scribz said
Sounds stupid, but face it. When have you ever encountered nothing? Turns out, even when you take away all quantified elements, from particles to waves and anything that consists of matter. You still have mass.Nothing doesn't exist, the base form of the universe is still .

Forget all you know, or all you think you know.

He and Bill O'Reilly had a funny debate where they pretty much both spoke with authority they pulled from their asses.

I do like O'Reilly's add-on to Dawkins's introductory banner.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Forget all you know, or all you you know.

I get it confuses you. I understand it, it's quite hard to get your head around it. But rather try and laugh at it. Read Krauss's book on it, it's their to present and explain it. You can't use common sense when it's not something that's common. You just have to trust the results being shown that despite there being no particles, no matter, no waves, beams forces, only space and time, which is the only two elements allowed to exist within a state of nothing. Literally has a quantifiable mass and is therefore still a state that can be effected, measured, and have a cause and effect outcome - for instance - like the beginning of the universe <-- that's what they mean by nothing being something.

scribz said
I get it confuses you. I understand it, it's quite hard to get your head around it. But rather try and laugh at it. Read Krauss's book on it, it's their to present and explain it. You can't use common sense when it's not something that's common. You just have to trust the results being shown that despite there being no particles, no matter, no waves, beams forces, only space and time, which is the only two elements allowed to exist within a state of nothing. <-- that's what they mean by nothing being something.

No, nothing is nothing. For nothing to be nothing, there has to be an absence of everything, including space and time. That's the definition of the word, no things, nothing.

Joegreenbeen said
No, nothing is nothing. For nothing to be nothing, there has to be an absence of everything, including space and time. That's the definition of the word, no things, nothing.

Dude, have you looked at space and time before? It's a void. Also. Funnily enough! The book explains that, it talks on how spacetime, the produce of space and time, bends around mass, and from the looks of things, anti-matter, which is produced with matter at the start of the universe, expands space! Also! Time increases around mass! So with the absence of anything but space and time still having mass. It actually shows how a singularity of both space and time itself caused what is could be a quantum expansion in relation to each other, with mass being the product of space and time in a rapid singularity.

So basically. What's being said here. Is that a universe of nothing, that is literally a singularity, that has forever approaching zero space, and forever approaching zero time, produced mass. That's about as nothing as you're ever going to get bub.

Nothing is the absence of a "thing", which, according to Dictionary.com, is anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.

I guess that's the literal meaning relating to the arrogance that human thoughts make things exist, and there is also a scientific meaning as well.

Joegreenbeen said
No, nothing is nothing. For nothing to be nothing, there has to be an absence of everything, including space and time. That's the definition of the word, no things, nothing.

Yes. The true definition of nothing is pure and utter null.

This is a problem that is so hard for intellectuals to accept, partly for good reasons AND stupid reasons.

A GOOD reason for people not understanding this, or not wanting to is that they are creative, and as they say "Nature abhors a vacuum". While this may not be what the old saying actually means, it makes sense here in the meaning that a creative, intelligent, artistic, etcetera type of mind doesn't want to accept that there's well. . . nothing. I know from experience that the mere concept of a pure utter LACK, is. . . not comforting.

It's the same feeling you get from religious people, when they are attacked by someone forcing their views on them, that there is no after life, God, and things of a spiritual nature. Nature abhors a vacuum, both of a spiritual nature and material nature. If there was ever a complete LACK of the universe and everything, how can there ever be anything else? Well, to be put quite simply, there is literally no way that could happen.

Christians, We believe that because there may have been an utter Lack, a certain number of aeons/eras ago, that there must have been a person, or Being. God's name is "I AM". ((All capital letters on purpose)). The nature of God, a being that has always been, infinitely behind and infinitely ahead and infinitely in present existence, is our religious/spiritual way of explaining the Nature of Existence and things lesser than God, which is all things and all beings. . .

Soo, in laymen's terms, a supernatural being is most likely the only explanation, I think, that can make sense out of science fiction and magical fantasy that could be coherent enough to stand up to scrutiny.

((Real scrutiny, not some mutiny against scrutiny.))

The reason why Science does not and will never explain everything is because there are two sides of coherent Creation/Existence. The spiritual cosmos and the physical cosmos. Disregarding either side is figuratively cutting half of someone's mind in half.

*edit*
Are all you dense? Ok, Nothing is the word to depict an idea. There is no literal nothing. There really isn't a need to debate it.

Boom, one line. That's all it took.

You're literally going to use a dictionary definition that was coined up a few hundred years ago before we even knew how to fly, right? Your taking associations from a language and not being accountable for it's obseletion. The point is, with only space and time, mass exists. Therefore something affectable exists. Without ever having the ability to take anything away, with us being at the base point of simplicity at it's most, is a boiling pot of what is potential particles coming in and out of existence at the same time. When you break down to the most simplest of states, you're left at the fringe of where reality and lack of reality merge, where tangible things and impossible non-existence vibrate in a superstate together.

Go on, keep saying nothing is nothing. Keep looking at a book dictated years and years ago where people would look at a large canyon, or the sky, or a dark hole, that's still filled with moisture, particles, atoms, radiation, beams, acting forces, and say "That's nothing" in comparison to something a little more substantial to which they say "and that's something!", and keep thinking to yourself "wow hey these people sure did know what was nothing!".

But what happened? Gasp! The sky turned out to have something in it, particles!

But the cosmos empty in between all those stars and rocks! Gasp! Even then there's radiation!

But then take away the radiation then! Gasp! Atoms still!

Take away the atoms! Gasp! Still something!

Take away all you possibly can! Gasp! Still something.

Face it, the more we strip away, the more you say "but you can't have something from nothing", do you realize that "hey, what we thought as nothing...never existed".

Update your associations with words with the results the universe give you. Cheers!

It's nothing like that.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Yes. The true definition of nothing is pure and utter null. This is a problem that is so hard for intellectuals to accept, partly for good reasons AND stupid reasons.A GOOD reason for people not understanding this, or not wanting to is that they are creative, and as they say "Nature abhors a vacuum". While this may not be what the old saying actually means, it makes sense here in the meaning that a creative, intelligent, artistic, etcetera type of mind doesn't want to accept that there's well. . . nothing. I know from experience that the mere concept of a pure utter , is. . . not comforting. It's the same feeling you get from religious people, when they are attacked by someone forcing their views on them, that there is no after life, God, and things of a spiritual nature. Nature abhors a vacuum, both of a spiritual nature and material nature. If there was ever a complete of the universe and everything, how can there ever be anything else? Well, to be put quite simply, there is literally no way that could happen. Christians, We believe that because there may have been an utter Lack, a certain number of aeons/eras ago, that there must have been a person, or Being. God's name is "I AM". ((All capital letters on purpose)). The nature of God, a being that has always been, infinitely behind and infinitely ahead and infinitely in present existence, is our religious/spiritual way of explaining the Nature of Existence and things lesser than God, which is all things and all beings. . . Soo, in laymen's terms, a supernatural being is most likely the only explanation, I think, that can make sense out of science fiction and magical fantasy that could be coherent enough to stand up to scrutiny. ((Real scrutiny, not some mutiny against scrutiny.)) The reason why Science does not and will never explain everything is because there are two sides of coherent Creation/Existence. The spiritual cosmos and the physical cosmos. Disregarding either side is figuratively cutting half of someone's mind in half.

Dear god please stop. Are you the authority on what nothing is? Is the dictionary the authority of what nothing is?
Can you please stop thinking in terms of associations given to you on a language crafted years before we knew how to even make a lightbulb switch on? Think past the words, think with 3D dimensional concepts, think with visuals, stop hanging up on the words, words are labels we put on things, or in this case, the utter lack of a thing.

We're debating about nothing now? So.. what are you guys arguing about again?

scribz said
Dear god please stop. Are you the authority on what nothing is? Is the dictionary the authority of what nothing is? Can you please stop thinking in terms of associations given to you on a language crafted years before we knew how to even make a lightbulb switch on? Think past the words, think with 3D dimensional concepts, think with visuals, stop hanging up on the words, words are labels we put on things, or in this case, the utter lack of a thing.

The arrogance of Adam's children is astounding.There is a wisdom and there is a knowledge.

A deficient enough wisdom may result in a loss of knowledge.

Our ancestors were probably in someways smarter than us.

Whether we are living in teepees with bows and arrows and tomahawks and wear eagle's feathers or whether we using computer guided missiles and have cloning technology, super computers and the internet doesn't matter.

Just because our far off ancestors way into the BC era didn't have MacDonalds, electricity and running water, didn't mean they were idiots.

I feel like everybody here thinks they know something, but in actuality we really only know nothing.

Boom. Socrates.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
The arrogance of Adam's children is astounding.There is a wisdom and there is a knowledge. A deficient enough wisdom may result in a loss of knowledge. Our ancestors were probably in someways smarter than us.Whether we are living in teepees with bows and arrows and tomahawks and wear eagle's feathers or whether we using computer guided missiles and have cloning technology, super computers and the internet doesn't matter. Just because our far off ancestors way into the BC era didn't have MacDonalds, electricity and running water, didn't mean they were idiots.

Adam slept with his own daughters, and somehow managed to get passed the whole "Need at least 10,000 of the same species not to die out/horrifically mutate", so if I'm coming across arrogant, take it as a result of generations of inbreeding.

Also, I didn't say they were idiots. I'm saying that they literally did not have the knowledge or where exposed to the information today to build a language that was reflective to that, and instead of updating our language and the associations given with it we keep to it and the silly obsolete customs they had then. Out with the old, in with the new.