i'll tell u some of my ideas:
first of all, nothingness is the absence of something... so lets take an infinite example... outer space.
so lets say that there is the universe: galaxies, stars, suns, planets, black holes, etc. but what is beyond the universe? NOTHING. but what does nothing look like??? for example, if its nothing, it should be colorless, so it must be transparent. but how does transparent look like? because in outer space, everything is black. so if nothing is transparent, than whats with the black background? you cannot see transparent, so it needs a background to be seen.
second:
nothingness, as i said, is the absence of something. in this case, the absence of everything. so everything includes air, therefore nothing cannot contain air. so that means its margins should be all packed together, not having any air, not having anything between them. but that means that nothing would become very small. yet still, nothing is ginormous. so my conclusion is that nothing contains nothing, represented by, lets say, teeeny weeeny boxes that contain nothing.
but what are the margins of nothing??? are they nothing, because they are the margins of nothing, or are they something, because they can be defined? but actually, can they be defined?
please help solve this mind-boggling problem: any ideas are helpful. here is my y! ID: haveagreatday_9979
add me and we can have an online conference.
star if you think its a good question.What is NOTHINGNESS? any idea is helpful... online debate?
I have a few ideas that I think might help. I actually remember contemplating this same question quite a few years ago, and reasoning very similarly to what you have outlined. I never reached a definitive conclusion, but I would like to share the following thoughts:
First, the word nothing is never used in any practical sense outside of some context. If I say, "There's nothing good on TV," I mean that none of the shows presently playing are good. Putting this in terms of "set theory," the intersection of the set of shows that are on TV with the set of good shows is the empty set. But my point is that in this case, I have used the word "nothing" in the context of TV shows.
If I say that the cupboard has nothing in it, what I mean is that of all of the things one should expect to find in a cupboard, none of those things are there. In set theory again, the intersection of the set of things one expects to find in cupboards with the set of things presently in the cupboard is the empty set. In this usage, "... except air, dust, lint, and shelf liner" is assumed. But again I have used the word nothing within a context, and in this case it regards cupboardy things.
But I think you want a universal definition of nothing that can be used globally in any context or in every context or in no context at all. I doubt this is possible. Let's say that nothing is the absence of something. What are you going to include in your definition of something? Well, the obvious things to include are anything made of matter: solids, gases, liquids, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, etc. Then you'll probably want to include the various kinds of energy: light, heat, motion, gravity, force, etc. Do you want to include concepts and ideas? thought? numbers and quantities? colors? all of the above? What about adding "nothing" to the list of things that are something? But if you do that, then you have a paradox, since nothing is the absence of something. This paradox is similar to Russell's Paradox (see the link below).
Clearly, the absence of something is dependent upon how you define "something," and that is in fact the context I referred to above. So the meaning of nothing is therefore context-dependent.
The question "What does nothing look like?" in fact has no meaning, rather like the question "How much does blue weigh?" This is because in place of the word nothing there is supposed to be a thing, and the thing is supposed to look like something. But nothing is the absence of a thing, and so the question makes no sense.
But it does make you wonder. As you pointed out, the universe is interspersed with pockets of something inside a giant vacuum of nothing. What does the edge of the universe look like? Is there any hope of ever seeing it, because if light could ever bounce off of it, that would mean something is there, and automatically it is no longer nothing.
I looked at your question, and I am now completely confused. I think that there is no such thing as Nothing- there always has to be something.What is NOTHINGNESS? any idea is helpful... online debate?
My ideas; first: Nothing is as you say, the absence of something. Space is black due to the absence of light. Our eyes can't see objects very far away even if they do give off light, so essentially space is blackness or nothingness to an infinite scale. I do not believe in a confined outer space.
Second: True. Nothing is the absence of air or any small particle, essentially a vacuum of space if you will. It can be defined as the absence or lack of something, otherwise it cannot be defined.
Dark MatterWhat is NOTHINGNESS? any idea is helpful... online debate?
Nothing is not transparent. Transparent is something. Black is something. Nothing is the absence of everything. Nothing exists but then again does not because it is nothing.
Nothingness is the Truth
Nothing comes from nothing.
Nothing is nonexistent because nothing is nothing (which is something) therefore it contradicts it's own meaning. But if you think about it, nothing is everything too since everything is missing something.
Two meanings..illusion..what pretends to be something but isn't ..evil,fear
Spiritual...not of the world of matter, energy, space or time..it's eternal, unlimited, Oneness.We are sons of God because we are like God. We are not our bodies, we are spirit.
nothing exsits more important than time/space but nothingness
can i join the debate where is it????
by the way its simple its lol ... it's the absence of matter
No comments:
Post a Comment