Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[Bro Dave]

[quote="ST88"}
Atheism requires no such materiality or even non-materiality. Everything can come about any way it likes just so long as there is no god or other religious nonsense involved.[/quote]

"... any way IT LIKES".

Do I detect an inherient intent within the "being" of the universe? Pretty scary! Implys a level of self consciousness and direction... Even atheists don't really like the happy accident explaination they are stuck with.

Bro Dave

[ST88]

Atheism requires no such materiality or even non-materiality. Everything can come about any way it likes just so long as there is no god or other religious nonsense involved.

"... any way IT LIKES".

Do I detect an inherient intent within the "being" of the universe? Pretty scary! Implys a level of self consciousness and direction... Even atheists don't really like the happy accident explaination they are stuck with.

Bro Dave

I didn't realize that YOU would take the pantheist bait, BroDave!

I'm not sure what you mean by atheists don't really like that explanation. What's to like or dislike? Things are the way they are. If they figure it out, fine, if not, fine. I would imagine that the atheist has very little problem with that, except in the context of academic inquiry, where careers are made on such questions.

[Bro Dave]

Well, I'm no pantheist, I believe the Universe is a sane, well run place, and did not magically bring itself into existance out of "nothing".

ST88:

I'm not sure what you mean by atheists don't really like that explanation.

What I mean is, thinking atheists, who have past the emotional stage of rejection both baby and bathwater, realize that getting the universe into its present condition, by using survival of the fittest rule, would leave a pretty unattractive mess! That which can simply survive, would require few delicate refinements and no need for aesthetics. Relying on the odd cosmic ray to randomly do the job,(or whatever random method you choose), just does not fit the results. Evolution took place in sudden major steps, not in dribs and drabs as old school evolution teaches. Can you actually imagine the design of a human female left to random rules? YIKES!!!

[QED]

What I mean is, thinking atheists, who have past the emotional stage of rejection both baby and bathwater, realize that getting the universe into its present condition, by using survival of the fittest rule, would leave a pretty unattractive mess!

This is highly subjective, one mans mess is another mans symphony.

That which can simply survive, would require few delicate refinements and no need for aesthetics.

Delicate refinements are a major requirement in an environment that imposes severe restrictions on competing organisms. Now if that sounds too much like techno-babble, think of it like this, every extra gram of an animals weight slows him down a little bit more. In any given race a tiny margin is all that's needed to pick a winner. Can you fault the logic?

Relying on the odd cosmic ray to randomly do the job,(or whatever random method you choose), just does not fit the results. Evolution took place in sudden major steps, not in dribs and drabs as old school evolution teaches. Can you actually imagine the design of a human female left to random rules? YIKES!!!

I'm amazed you use this example, sexual selection is all about attractiveness -- females choose mates that look a particular way, a way that they associate with being able to provide many fit and healthy offspring. This stuff just makes so much sense, but this is definitely not the thread to discuss it in. Are you actively debating in any evolution topic right now? We ought to be discussing this elsewhere.

[harvey1]

Even brane theory requires multiple branes. Dwindling to nothing shouldn't imply that nothing is left. I don't comprehend all of the technical aspects of that article, but it sounds like it has to do with the "shape" of the brane "boundary."

Take a look at this paper. The authors postulate that our (3+1) brane (embedded in a AdS geometry) might have arisen from the "collision of two bubbles filled with AdS" that arose from quantum tunnelling (i.e., from nothing).

I don't see what a world with or without stuff has anything to do with atheism.

Without stuff would mean that a non-material world "precedes" a material world, and this would be advocating a pantheistic solution to the existence of the universe.

Atheism requires no such materiality or even non-materiality. Everything can come about any way it likes just so long as there is no god or other religious nonsense involved.

But, my point is that if the universe didn't arise from a material world, then atheism is not possible. This is an issue of logic existing independent of the universe. That is, logic is a language. If the language is not understood, then it is gibberish. Without a mind, it is impossible for the logic-independent world to rationally cause a material world. Let me describe it like this:

1. The (meta)universe is caused by some kind of logic that exists "above" or "apart" from the (meta)universe
2. A statement of this logic (or group of statements of this logic) require there to be a (meta)universe, and therefore the (meta)universe exists
3. Each statement or group of logic statements has some kind of meaning in order for the statement to cause the (meta)universe
4. The meaning of a logic statement requires comprehension by a mind
5. If no mind, each statement of logic is gibberish and cannot instantiate a (meta)universe since it would provide no logic to do so
6. There is a (meta)universe, hence if logic exists independently of the (meta)universe, then it must be comprehended and controlled by a mind
7. Thus, only a "brute fact" material universe can satisfy an atheist requirement that a God not exist

Note: I removed a reference to Machio Kaku talking about bubbles of nothing because I couldn't verify the source...

[WHY?]

I amy be wrong, but nothingness has nothing to do with religion. From both pantheism and atheism beliefs, there was never just nothing. I'm not trying to outline the entire beliefs of everyone here, but it is not logical to do believe that, at any point, there was nothing. And if anyone should ever find nothingness, he will have found something. This topic isnt really all that complicated, unless someone can contradict the previous sentence.

[harvey1]

I amy be wrong, but nothingness has nothing to do with religion. From both pantheism and atheism beliefs, there was never just nothing. I'm not trying to outline the entire beliefs of everyone here, but it is not logical to do believe that, at any point, there was nothing. And if anyone should ever find nothingness, he will have found something. This topic isnt really all that complicated, unless someone can contradict the previous sentence.

As I told you before, by "nothing" physicists are mostly talking about no spacetime=nothing.

[QED]

4. The meaning of a logic statement requires comprehension by a mind
5. If no mind, each statement of logic is gibberish and cannot instantiate a (meta)universe since it would provide no logic to do so

So you say on numerous occasions. You seem very confident in your understanding of the nauture of logic, but can you even tell me how it works? Does logic dictate things to happen, or is it a manifestation of the way things happen? A coin has no option but to fall on either side so does it make sense to say that logic dictates this? Again, I say the hardware comes first and logic is a secondary expression of the consequences.

[harvey1]

So you say on numerous occasions. You seem very confident in your understanding of the nauture of logic, but can you even tell me how it works? Does logic dictate things to happen, or is it a manifestation of the way things happen? A coin has no option but to fall on either side so does it make sense to say that logic dictates this? Again, I say the hardware comes first and logic is a secondary expression of the consequences.

It is about possibilities. Logic restricts what is possible. A coin has no option but to fall on either side because the laws of physics make that impossible in a classical world. If the laws allowed quantum superposition for classical objects, then in that case the coin could land as heads and tails at the same time. The laws are based on logic, and therefore due to some reason that we do not know yet, classical objects do not go into superposition in all of our observations.

As for hardware versus software, as I pointed out before, we have good reason to think that quantum laws dictate how the world evolves. The quantum laws themselves are mathematically derivable to large extent, and it appears that eventually foundational physics may even successfully derive quantum physics from information theory (some say this has already been achieved).

[QED]

It is about possibilities. Logic restricts what is possible. A coin has no option but to fall on either side because the laws of physics make that impossible in a classical world. If the laws allowed quantum superposition for classical objects, then in that case the coin could land as heads and tails at the same time. The laws are based on logic, and therefore due to some reason that we do not know yet, classical objects do not go into superposition in all of our observations.

This is known however, Quantum Decoherence is only viable at very short range. Path integrals quickly put pay to superposition. It's plain old averaging at work.

As for hardware versus software, as I pointed out before, we have good reason to think that quantum laws dictate how the world evolves. The quantum laws themselves are mathematically derivable to large extent, and it appears that eventually foundational physics may even successfully derive quantum physics from information theory (some say this has already been achieved).

It looks like we're getting into another big dispute here. If the regular patterns that we observe in nature is not broken then mathematics is just another symbolic language. Information/software is a transferrable pattern that rides on hardware. The uncertainty principle is a property of the hardware of our universe, not some rule existing in a platonic world of ideas prescribing how the universe should act.