Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[viole]

I just want to know where the 'material' part comes in, as regards your comment: 'looks pretty material to me'

If something can be bent and can even create waves when plucked, then it looks pretty material to me. By the way, energy is material too, we measured it in electronvolts or calories, so I do not see your point.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

If something can be bent and can even create waves when plucked, then it looks pretty material to me. By the way, energy is material too, we measured it in electronvolts or calories, so I do not see your point.

Ciao

- viole

So bottom line, space is material? Does this compute?

 

[viole]

So bottom line, space is material? Does this compute?

Yes. Actually, no. To be precise, spacetime is material. Do you think it is spiritual?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you rephrase the description to exclude solid completely?

The spaces defined by linear combinations of vectors with (real-valued or complex) scalar products (with or without an inner product). Alternatively, Stereographic projection onto the sphere from the unit interval.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If it was, wouldn't it be "something"?

Yes. I would say if empty space takes up space, then it is still something, not nothing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The spaces defined by linear combinations of vectors with (real-valued or complex) scalar products (with or without an inner product). Alternatively, Stereographic projection onto the sphere from the unit interval.

So is it because empty space or "nothingness" cannot be measured that means it cannot be an actual dimension since dimensions are typically measurable?

 

[godnotgod]

So bottom line, space is material? Does this compute?

Yes. Actually, no. To be precise, spacetime is material.

If it is 'material' how do you distinguish space-time materiality from solids materiality? I think 'material' has no meaning any longer.

edit: Don't we usually think of what is 'material' as being composed of atoms? Is space-time composed of atoms?

Do you think it is spiritual?

I think space-time is purely conceptual.

 

[godnotgod]

The spaces defined by linear combinations of vectors with (real-valued or complex) scalar products (with or without an inner product). Alternatively, Stereographic projection onto the sphere from the unit interval.

I suspect the first sentence involves solids-reference somehow, and the second definitely does.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. I would say if empty space takes up space, then it is still something, not nothing.

How does empty space take up space, and how is it still something? and how do you define 'something'?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. I would say if empty space takes up space, then it is still something, not nothing.

To say that space is empty implies solids, which it is empty of. To say that it is 'some-thing' makes it finite and divisible as object.

Nothingness is neither space nor solid.

 

[freethinker44]

You can only know that there is something because of nothingness. Without nothingness, there is nothing

That's a perfect example for circular logic. It's the opposite actually. Nothing only exists relative to something, something only needs to be something to exist. Think of something as a barrel and nothing as a hole. As long as there is a barrel relative to the hole, the hole has some meaning. A barrel is a barrel whether it has a hole or not, but what's a hole without a barrel? You can't even call it nothing, it doesn't make sense to speak of a hole without some reference to something that can have a hole in it. Without a barrel, a hole isn't even nothing, it's less than nothing, it's not even a concept to be considered. So, without a barrel, there isn't a hole, likewise, without something, there isn't nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

That's a perfect example for circular logic. It's the opposite actually. Nothing only exists relative to something, something only needs to be something to exist. Think of something as a barrel and nothing as a hole. As long as there is a barrel relative to the hole, the hole has some meaning. A barrel is a barrel whether it has a hole or not, but what's a hole without a barrel? You can't even call it nothing, it doesn't make sense to speak of a hole without some reference to something that can have a hole in it. Without a barrel, a hole isn't even nothing, it's less than nothing, it's not even a concept to be considered. So, without a barrel, there isn't a hole, likewise, without something, there isn't nothing.

The fallacy in your logic is that the hole is defined by something. What you should be comparing barrel to is space, as in solid and space. The barrel can exist without a hole, but not without space. Without a barrel, a hole is still a hole.


I am afraid your analogy requires a complete revamping at Square One, as it is a comedy of errors.


Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 11

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore profit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nothing is a paradox that we can't imagine, really. I do find the notion of a pandimensional realm of Chaos - where everything and nothing exists at the same time, as found in Anti-Cosmic Satanism, to be quite intriguing.

 

[freethinker44]

The fallacy in your logic is that the hole is defined by something.

That's exactly the point. If we define something as a thing that physically exists, then if nothing exists apart from something then it must be a thing that does not physically exist. So nothing would be boundless, because it doesn't make sense to give geometry to something that doesn't physically exist. But this doesn't hold if something comes out of nothing. If something forms from nothing, nothing would have geometry. It would be the inverse shape of the something. So our definition of nothing doesn't work, and therefore nothing cannot exist apart from something.

What you should be comparing barrel to is space, as in solid and space. The barrel can exist without a hole, but not without space. Without a barrel, a hole is still a hole.

No, the barrel represents something, that is, all things that exist including space, and the hole represents nothing. So a hole in the barrel is a hole in space, or nothing in something. Something is still something without nothing, but nothing is meaningless without something. Nothing can't even be defined without something.

 

[godnotgod]

everything and nothing exists at the same time,.

Actually, that is the case. However, they do not exist separately from one another; they are, in fact one and the same. If you THINK 'everything' and 'nothing', they are separate; a duality, but if you SEE 'everything' and 'nothing', without conceptualization, they are the same Reality.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Could you explain what ''anti-cosmic Satanism'' means, briefly?

Thanks!

It's an extreme form of Gnostic Satanism. Basically, they want the cosmos to be destroyed and engage in magickal activities to that end.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nothing can't even be defined without something.

Indeed. Nothing is the absence of something.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sounds like pie in the sky fantasy. How would anyone do that. Or wait, what is the point of that, as well. Sheesh that seems ridiculous.

Er, because they're rather extreme Gnostics. They view the causal plane as a prison for spiritual beings and so want the prison to be destroyed. They believe that their Gods will eventually destroy the cosmos, which will be consumed by Chaos. It's not all that different from what various scientific theories think the ultimate fate of the universe will be. They just want to speed it along.

 

[freethinker44]

Indeed. Nothing is an absence of something.

It's not that simple. An absence of something is still something. You can't define nothing without making it something. If there is only either something and/or nothing, and something is a thing that exists, then does nothing exist? If yes, then nothing is something and so it cannot possibly mean the absence of something because it would be the absence of itself, and if no, then there is only something. Given this something/nothing dichotomy, there is only something and cannot be nothing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

*Shrugs*, you know what, I'm not going to debate this. That's very interesting, there.

Lol. It's not around to win hearts and minds.