[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 218 KB, 1861x2482, received_1105563776627157.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12584795 No.12584795 [Reply] [Original]

I was arguing with my wife today. She believes that 'nothing' doesn't exist as a physical thing, and that everything is something, that there is no such thing as 'nothing', that there is no such thing as the absence of something because even the void is a thing.

I argued on the other hand that nothing is very much real and that 'something' would be meaningless without 'nothing'. Looking beyond the obvious metaphysical implications of 'nothing' and just looking at what the literal physical meaning of nothing is, it puts distance between things.


Look at atoms as science looks at them. They cannot physically be made to touch due to magnoelectric forces that result in the actual particles never touching each other, none of the atoms in your body ever touch each other. Look at an atom itself and the size of the nucleus compared to the distance of the electrons orbiting it is ridiculous. We are made of atoms, made of matter, yet at the same time I would argue it is the very abscene of matter, the 'nothing' and the way matter shapes itself around it that defines us. You take away 'nothing' and everything suddenly becomes infinitely close to each other, identity becomes meaningless.

Neither of us are scientists and have no background in physics. She's an english teacher and I studied biology at uni only to work in finance and sell loans to retards, so I ask you, /sci/ - who, if anyone, is right? Or are we both retards?

Pic unrelated, it's a bag full of my teeth.

>> No.12584830

Feels like it's more about semantics than anything else. You both seem to agree that nothing as a concept has to exist. You just call it "nothing", while she says that every form of "nothing" has its own name, making it its own thing (which I suppose is a fitting approach for someone who teaches English). In the end though, the definition of a void is literally "an empty space", a.k.a a whole lot of nothing. Absence of something. I dont think you, in essence, really disagree with eachother on the nature of nothing.

>> No.12584850

>>12584795
Look inside her head and nothing you shall find

>> No.12584892

>>12584795
wife's correct, you literal autist

>> No.12584905

>>12584795
In the complete absence of any matter or energy, with nothing to distort space time or provide any kind of reference point to anything else... I think that’s about as close to “nothing” as one could get.

>> No.12584936

>>12584795
Your wife is correct. Even what we think of as total void (vacuum) has an associated quantity of energy. There is no such thing as "nothing" which exists in spacetime.
>Look at atoms as science looks at them. They cannot physically be made to touch due to magnoelectric forces that result in the actual particles never touching each other
Fusion happens literally all the time

>> No.12584950

>>12584795
>Look at an atom itself and the size of the nucleus compared to the distance of the electrons orbiting it
You're trying to make arguments about the nature of reality without even understanding it properly. The Bohr model is wrong, electrons do not "orbit" nuclei at fixed distances.
lern2qm, midwit

>> No.12586040

>>12584795
Your wife is right.
>Looking beyond the obvious metaphysical implications of 'nothing' and just looking at what the literal physical meaning of nothing is
You're taking a materialist view, which is wrong. The existence of universals (numbers, propositions, possible worlds) proves that there is no such thing as nothing.

>> No.12586045

space is a something

>> No.12586066
File: 24 KB, 720x540, blind_spot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12586066

>>12584795
If you look at your thumb doing a thumbs-up, and then move your finger without looking elsewhere, you won't see you thumb because it's in the eyes blindspot. No information will be sendt to your brain about the thumb. People that have had a stroke on one side of the brain, will maybe only shave half their face, because they can't sense the side with the stroke, and wont shave that part. Hope this added something to your discussion.

>> No.12586080

>>12584795
Go look up quantum gravity and apologize to your wife.

>> No.12586104

>>12584795
you're splitting hairs

>> No.12586122

>>12584795
Just look up metaphysical universals

>> No.12586131

>>12584795
hard to prove when you're describing something with somethings.

if something never existed, would it be considered a representation of nothing?

both are correct because of you knew nothing existed, it wouldn't. if you prove nothing doesn't exist, you'll never anyway.

>> No.12586180

Even perfectly empty space has properties and therefore cannot be considered nothing since it has characteristics.

>> No.12586183
File: 17 KB, 208x250, kgyukig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12586183

>>12584795
>you will never have a wife to discuss metaphysics with
feels bad man

>> No.12586248

>>12584795
>I was arguing with my wife today. She believes that 'nothing' doesn't exist as a physical thing, and that everything is something, that there is no such thing as 'nothing', that there is no such thing as the absence of something because even the void is a thing.

You must feel really fucking stupid for arguing over nothing. From nothing comes nothing, obviously so. Other than that, good bait.

>Looking beyond the obvious metaphysical implications of 'nothing' and just looking at what the literal physical meaning of nothing is, it puts distance between things.

As absurd as this sounds, I see why you believe such. I come across the same types of people using the same argument for the existence of "space". Then when they fail at explaining they just illogically fall back on "well nothing is not nothing okay"? Ultimately you cannot provide evidence of something that is evidence-less. The point and discussion about it is moot because there is literally nothing there to derive from it.

>She's an english teacher and I studied biology at uni only to work in finance and sell loans to retards, so I ask you, /sci/ - who, if anyone, is right? Or are we both retards?

The explanation as to why you think the way you do vs her is because you're used to dealing in quantities. "0" has a meaning to you in your business which is why you give meaning to it when you claim nothing is something, it REPRESENTS itself as a placeholder for you to use in your accounting. Is a representation the real thing though? No.
Forgive the excessive autism, for I'm casting a lure for others to bite.

>>12586045
Like this idiot here. What IS space? Can you tell me without pointing to everything else that isn't it in order to define it? Chase that shadow till you're blue.

>> No.12586255

>>12586183
Thank fucking god.

>>12586180
"Space" has no properties, I don't see how it obtains them by being "empty". You say a lack of something is something, it makes no sense.
What properties does it have? I hear the "model of spacetime" claims it can be "bent", yet I see no actual evidence of this.

>>12586131
>hard to prove when you're describing something with somethings.
Unicorns can be described but still cease to exist.

>> No.12586281

>>12584795
study topology

>> No.12586290

>>12586255
>"Space" has no properties, I don't see how it obtains them by being "empty". You say a lack of something is something, it makes no sense.
True emptiness, which is synonymous with nothing, doesn't exist, see >>12586040 Empty space has the property of universals existing in it.
>Unicorns can be described but still cease to exist
Unicorns exist as ideas in the minds of people. If unicorns didn't exist at all in any of the ways that things can exist, then we wouldn't be able to think of them, let alone discuss them.

>> No.12586294

A circle doesn't exist as a physical thing either and it's still a useful idea.

>> No.12586335

>>12586255
Even truly empty space has dimensions and a location, and other properties that I don't know about but which a physicist may have an idea of.

>"but dimensions and location are human conceptions which we apply to things and not intrinsic properties!"

Then you may as well take the same line of thinking with regards to mass, velocity, and so on, and say that a stone you're holding in your hand is nothing.

>> No.12586451

Reminder to beat your wife

>> No.12586675

>>12586290
>Empty space has the property of universals existing in it.
Lolwut? "Space has the properties of the stuff in it that has properties". You define it with what it isn't. You contradict by saying it has something, yet is empty? It has a lack? Which is it?

>Unicorns exist as ideas in the minds of people.
So does "space"

>If unicorns didn't exist at all in any of the ways that things can exist, then we wouldn't be able to think of them, let alone discuss them.
Okay...It classifies as a "noun" yet you still can't show me it, that's the point.

>>12586335
>Even truly empty space has dimensions and a location, and other properties that I don't know about but which a physicist may have an idea of.
It's null. How could it?

>"but dimensions and location are human conceptions which we apply to things and not intrinsic properties!"
"Yes". They aid in describing *the thing that is real*. A measurement isn't a property, it's a description.

>Then you may as well take the same line of thinking with regards to mass, velocity, and so on, and say that a stone you're holding in your hand is nothing.
First off, everything you listed is an idea save for the stone. They don't tangibly exist *as something* like the stone...as an idea but ideas have no properties lol. Second, I can show empirical evidence of "the stone", it may even come in the form of one of the measurements you listed. It can be compared to other things too, and we can derive what properties it has because of that. The problem is that you don't have empirical evidence of "space", other than "everything else that space is not". I can't measure it in other words, I can't tell you "the velocity of space" or "the mass" or "location" of it. I can't compare "it" because "it is not". There is nothing to compare, no properties, a lack of them rather. All you have is "distance between two things with the properties and claim "distance" is something with a property in itself". It doesn't follow.
.

>> No.12586689

>>12584795
How would you know there's something unless there was nothing at all?

>> No.12586713

>>12586675
Space has an impedance to various things like an electric field. If space is nothing why do fields diminish with distance? If a field spreads what is it spreading into? What is light traversing in that 8 minutes it takes to get from the sun? What is the light "filling" from the central point?
You can describe the location of some point in space the way you describe location of everything else: by using references to other things. That is a very bad analogy. Velocity is also a very shit choice for the same reason.

>> No.12586729

1s I don't understand that things like PBS swear by
that 1 in the op
>No form of energy can travel through space
>1 atom's spin setting the 1 next to it into an opposite motion means they're actually connected then no matter how far apart they become from each other

>> No.12586745

>>12586675
Where do you suppose this nothing you are talking about is located?

>In the vacuum of outer space?

>In the space between microscopic objects?

>Everywhere?

>Nowhere?

>> No.12586829

You are right, nothing does exist. But you gotta slap your woman hard so she never ever doubts and argues yer oppinion.

>> No.12586842 [DELETED] 

>>12586675
By "Empty" I mean a lack of physical things, not a lack of all things, which isn't possible. I should have clarified:
"Empty space has the property of HAVING universals existing in it".
>Okay...It classifies as a "noun" yet you still can't show me it, that's the point.
Unicorns don't exist in physical reality, but they exist as ideas.
>ideas have no properties
That's not true, using your earlier example, a unicorn has the possibility to exist, maybe if a scientist genetically engineered a horse to have a horn, unicorns are possible. Square circles, however, are impossible, they have no possibility to exist. The fact that we can differentiate ideas as possible and impossible means that they do have properties.

>> No.12586881

>>12586675
By "Empty" I mean a lack of physical things, not a lack of all things, which isn't possible. I should have clarified:
"Empty space has the property of HAVING universals existing in it".
>Okay...It classifies as a "noun" yet you still can't show me it, that's the point.
I can't show it to, because it doesn't exist as a physical entity, but I can discuss it with you, because it exists as an idea. Any example of nothing will have to have no kinds of things, whether physical or non-physical, existing in it. This isn't possible, so nothing does not exist, unless you addead the caveat of no physical things exitsting in it, instead of also no non-physical things, but such a nothing wouldn't truly be nothing.
>ideas have no properties
That's not true, using your earlier example, a unicorn has the possibility to exist, maybe if a scientist genetically engineered a horse to have a horn, unicorns are possible. Square circles, however, are impossible, they have no possibility to exist. The fact that we can differentiate ideas as possible and impossible means that they do have properties.

>> No.12586886

>>12586881
*added

>> No.12587171

>>12586713
>If space is nothing why do fields diminish with distance?
You tell me? I presume the "space" is filled in order to cause this "impedence". What else would cause that? Nothing? Nothing impedes nothing.

>If a field spreads what is it spreading into?
??? You call what it spreads into "space" and yet you have nothing to show for it or the ability to differentiate these fields from "space".

>What is light traversing in that 8 minutes it takes to get from the sun?
It's induced to exist. An electromagnetic phenomena.

>What is the light "filling" from the central point?
It's already filled, that's how it's able to exist in the first place. No medium, no connection.

>You can describe the location of some point in space the way you describe location of everything else: by using references to other things.
"other things" are there to be referenced. Where is "space" to be referenced?

>>12586745
>Where do you suppose this nothing you are talking about is located?
nowhere specific if anywhere at all. If it were somewhere you could tell me where it's located.

>>12586881
>but I can discuss it with you, because it exists as an idea
It's an idea then, space. I fail to s

>That's not true, using your earlier example, a unicorn has the possibility to exist, maybe if a scientist genetically engineered a horse to have a horn, unicorns are possible.
Well possibilities don't have properties either. An actual, real life in reality unicorn would though.

>The fact that we can differentiate ideas as possible and impossible means that they do have properties.
No we make ideas have properties by actuating them. Making them real. Then they have the actual properties we may or may not theorize them to have. It's like saying Leonardo and the Wright brothers aircraft designs both have the properties of being able to fly simple because they're ideas. No, one doesn't fly at all and the other barely flies and both still had to be built in reality to confirm that.

>> No.12587199

>>12587171
Nope, you can't prove anything is real. You are a figment of my imagination. What is the life of an image board post like?

>> No.12587696

>>12584795
In theory, a state of nothing could exist, but since there is at least one particle in the universe, something exists. Therefore nothing can't exist. Even the most remote empty space has some radiation.

>> No.12587708

>>12584795
>my wife
nobody cares.

>> No.12587712

>>12586713
>>12587171
Fields can do whatever they want, only certain fields diminish with distance. You're thinking of say gravity or e&m, however the strong force i think it was for example, increases asymptotically over small distances and decreases past a certain distance. So whether a force increases, decreases, or whatever shape it takes is dictated by the distribution concentration of the matter and carrier particles.

>> No.12588036

>>12586255
>I hear the "model of spacetime" claims it can be "bent", yet I see no actual evidence of this.
Gravitational lensing dummy

>> No.12588214

>>12584795
>atoms can't touch eachother
Literally happening in the environment of the Sun every nano-second.

For another example where the atoms aren't obliterated on contact you can look at neutron stars. The environment is so extreme that atoms are completely broken apart and their parts forced together literally into one another, occupying all possible space and creating the densest matter theorized.

As for the concept of nothing, in scientific terms "nothing" doesn't exist, it's a purely philosophical concept. The space between world's is the closest to "nothing" that we can observe in space-time and even that is relatively filled with random electrons, the CMB, random photons and waves from literally trillions and trillions of sources, etc. Even if you were in the intergalactic void between distant galaxies the photons from those galaxies are bombarding you, proving that "nothing" doesn't exist. The point is, "nothing" isn't something scientists worry about, because it doesn't exist.

>> No.12588363

>imagine being dumber than a girl

>> No.12588399

>>12584795
Your wife is mostly right.

"Nothing" is a human concept that really means "Nothing, as far as we can tell".
If we can't see/hear/smell/touch it, we call it "nothing", even though it's actually a huge mass of different gases and particulates that we can't detect without tools.
"Nothing" in the scientific world is kind of like "Here there be dragons" on those old-timey maps from when the world wasn't explored yet.
Even space itself - "dark matter" as it were (literally named for how little we know about it) - while not appearing to be made of any known substance even by our tools, is undoubtedly made of something we just can't detect yet.
>everything suddenly becomes infinitely close to each other, identity becomes meaningless
Don't look up "fractals" if you don't want to lose your mind. They occur in nature in many different common forms. Infinity is a real thing, bro.

>> No.12588460

>>12584795
If you have 1 apple, it exists, if you have 10 apples, there are 10 apples existing, if you have 0 apples, there are no apples existing. Nothing is not a thing that does existing because nothing is not a thing, it is nothing, it is the absence of thing and thing need to be thing to do existing, even metaphysically I think.

>> No.12588571

>>12584795

It depends on what you're measuring.

An equilibrium is a nothing. If you are in equilibrium within it, you notice nothing, and you are nothing to notice.

Nothing is a measurement problem.

>> No.12589030

>>12587171
>Well possibilities don't have properties either. An actual, real life in reality unicorn would though.
>No we make ideas have properties by actuating them. Making them real. Then they have the actual properties we may or may not theorize them to have.
Your definition of a property is wrong. You assume that only material things can have properties. If ideas didn't have properties, then there would be nothing to differentiate a unicorn and a square circle, but that isn't true, since the former is possible and the latter is impossible.
>It's like saying Leonardo and the Wright brothers aircraft designs both have the properties of being able to fly simple because they're ideas.
It's not like that. Before it was built in real life, Da Vinci's plane had the property of not being able to fly well, it's just that neither Da Vinci or anyone else could know for sure it had that property until that specific plane was built and tested.
>No, one doesn't fly at all and the other barely flies and both still had to be built in reality to confirm that.
They both had properties when they were first concepts, building them and testing them allowed people to confirm whether they had the property of flying well.
>>12587696
>In theory, a state of nothing could exist,
This is wrong even if no physical matter existed, universals such as propositions would exist.

>> No.12589198

"Nothing" can't physically exist. Maybe, MAYBE it would be possible to speak of nothingness in the sense of there being no spacetime before the Big Bang, but the question is kinda meaningless.

>> No.12589543

>>12584795
This is more of a philosophy of language rather than of metaphysics discussion. But your waifu is more correct than you. Nothing doesn't exist in the same way that cold doesn't exist. Space is still ontologically something (even disregarding gen relativity). Why we can say that? Because humans (or living beings) are the only thing that have access to nothingness, via the imagination. You can imagine 10 meters of empty space (nothingness according to you, but not your waifus/my definition) between you and your computer monitor. But it doesn't currently exist. It's fiction. It's "true" nothing. So nothing doesn't exist except as a linguistic pointer.

>> No.12589547

Your wife is a smart woman and a keeper. Zero is an abstraction, it does not exist in nature in any way.

>> No.12590186

>>12584795
Point a flashlight at the moon so as to cover the whole surface, then move your finger super fast across the flashlight beam. When the shadow reaches the planet it will move across the surface of the moon faster than the speed of light. Thus, this shadow, a "nothing", can travel faster than light. However, it carries no information and thus relativity is not violated. The point is that, in some sense, some "real" things don't enter in to physics in the way you expect and it makes some sense to call them a "no-thing".

>> No.12590505

>>12584830
based and reasonable-pilled

>> No.12591281

>>12589547
Sure it does anon. You've had sex zero times, for example

>> No.12591291
File: 35 KB, 600x600, 1300044776986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12591291

>>12590186
>being this retarded

>> No.12591513

>>12589030
It's not wrong in the context of matter, however I could clean it up. It's not that nothing exists, but that the State of nothing could exist as some imaginary idealized model. Even more though, I shouldn't use the word exists because things exist, nothing wouldn't "exist," and the state of nothing isn't really an existence either. It's just nothing, it is the non existence.

Never heard of the proposition take on things, but who or what is propositioning? Are you saying something physical or mental?

Nothing doesn't need empty space to "be in," there is no empty space even, it's just nothing. And, Empty space can't exist in practicality because space is the fabric, it's made of stuff. Space is minimally partially filled, and objects can only exist inside the partially empty space within other objects.

>> No.12591520

>>12591291
>2021
>still promoting jewish hollywood media franchises

>> No.12591532

"nothing" can't exist you retard your wife was right

>> No.12592695

>>12591513
>Never heard of the proposition take on things, but who or what is propositioning?
Someone or something wouldn't need to proposition. In the scenario I had in mind, if we consider a reality where no physical matter exist, only nothing exists (or "is",or ehatever else word to describe it bring present in reality), then concerning that reality the propositions that "Nothing is", or "No physical matter exists", would be true, and only propositions that exist can be true, so that reality with no physical matter still has propositions in it, in which case it is not really nothing.
>Nothing doesn't need empty space to "be in," there is no empty space even, it's just nothing. And, Empty space can't exist in practicality because space is the fabric, it's made of stuff. Space is minimally partially filled, and objects can only exist inside the partially empty space within other objects.
I agree with you, are you in agreement that nothing could never exist(or be present in reality or "is")?

>> No.12594099

>>12584795
This is a great question, and it's legitimately interesting, but it fall in either the category of philosophy or linguistics, not physics.

>> No.12594161

>>12584830
Disagree. I think she has the correct assumption whilst his is flat and axiomatic.

Is there nothing between atoms or has it simply been defined as nothing until we figure out what it is?

From what I can see we use to think there was a lot of ‘nothing’ and now we think there is a whole lot less. I imagine if we could ever see further back than Higgs then our idea of nothing will be a whole lot of something.

>> No.12594178

>>12594099
The philosophy you describe would be metaphysics. Essential debating about physics before the field came into its own, so...

>> No.12594184

How can nothing exist?

If the universe comes from nothing then at some point 0+0=1.