Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

[greylorn]

The definition of “physical” includes everything which interacts with anything which is physical.

where did you get that definition? i am using the term as anything having the normal qualities we associate with material objects

I got it in the process of obtaining a degree in physics.

While taking a philosophy course and being required to parrot absurd ideas generated by guys who had no clue as to what the physical universe was about, it became apparent to me that an understanding of physics, to the best of our ability, is necessary to the genuine understanding of anything else.

Therefore I learned to apply it to religious ideas as well. Here is how my meager understanding of physics applies to our conversation.

Physics got its start by studying the behavior of matter. Newton’s three laws were ostensibly only about matter. Because they worked, they opened up the study of other things which did not appear to be matter, such as light and heat. The discovery of energy as a useful abstraction followed. Before long we discovered electric and magnetic fields, forms of energy which were clearly not matter, but which interacted with matter. Maxwell formulated the laws of electrodynamics, and before long we learned to use radio waves, electromagnetic radiation which is clearly immaterial, and which (as you’ll see by studying e-m radiation formulas) are not material, but interact with things which are.

The study of physics includes all forms of energy which interact with matter, or with other forms of energy. Matter does not always need to be involved. Maxwell’s equations do not include a single term representing mass. A physicist regards everything which interacts with any known physical form as physical, by definition, for it comes within the purview of physics.

Light, e-m fields, gravitational fields, and all forms of hard and soft radiation are physical. These things are not material. This is a useful distinction.

If the soul interacts with the human body in any way, it is, by this understanding, a physical entity. If God can move a single atom from point A to point B, He is a physical entity.

I realize that I am using a distinction which is not widely employed. That is because I take these subjects seriously enough to seek real answers. I understand that you are more comfortable not making any such distinctions, and recognize that a coherent conversation on these subjects without such distinctions is a total waste of time. I apologize for wasting yours.

 

[greylorn]

are you actually saying that matter is created in stars? matter that did not previously exist, comes into existence?

i must be misunderstanding your point here.

That is exactly what I am saying. You understand correctly.

 

[greylorn]

Petey,
"greylorn:

Since the “non-physical” is totally beyond human discovery (by definition) anyone can make up whatever they want to about it. The Catholic Church has made up some things.

what did we make up?

The notion that the human soul is non-physical, and that the Creator of the Universe is non-physical.

These definitions have no purpose that I can determine other than to forestall a serious investigation of either, and to prevent any objective understanding of either. What I find particularly curious is that after declaring God and soul to be non-physical, religions make up all sorts of things about their interaction with the physical.

Other non-physical inventions are heaven, hell, and angels.
"greylorn:

Buddhists make up other things. Anyone who wants to can invents anything he, she, or it wants to invent, and cannot be refuted— except by someone who declares, “Hey, the invented stuff about the non-physical which I believe in is better than yours!”

thats all theology your talking about here.

Yep, pretty much. Except for the theology I devised which is derived from physical evidence and the established principles of classical physics. (Which means it can be verified.)

There wouldn’t be much point in my complaining about poor ideas unless I thought there were better ones.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The definition of “physical” includes everything which interacts with anything which is physical.

I got it in the process of obtaining a degree in physics.

While taking a philosophy course and being required to parrot absurd ideas generated by guys who had no clue as to what the physical universe was about, it became apparent to me that an understanding of physics, to the best of our ability, is necessary to the genuine understanding of anything else.

Therefore I learned to apply it to religious ideas as well. Here is how my meager understanding of physics applies to our conversation.

Physics got its start by studying the behavior of matter. Newton’s three laws were ostensibly only about matter. Because they worked, they opened up the study of other things which did not appear to be matter, such as light and heat. The discovery of energy as a useful abstraction followed. Before long we discovered electric and magnetic fields, forms of energy which were clearly not matter, but which interacted with matter. Maxwell formulated the laws of electrodynamics, and before long we learned to use radio waves, electromagnetic radiation which is clearly immaterial, and which (as you’ll see by studying e-m radiation formulas) are not material, but interact with things which are.

The study of physics includes all forms of energy which interact with matter, or with other forms of energy. Matter does not always need to be involved. Maxwell’s equations do not include a single term representing mass. A physicist regards everything which interacts with any known physical form as physical, by definition, for it comes within the purview of physics.

Light, e-m fields, gravitational fields, and all forms of hard and soft radiation are physical. These things are not material. This is a useful distinction.

If the soul interacts with the human body in any way, it is, by this understanding, a physical entity. If God can move a single atom from point A to point B, He is a physical entity.

I realize that I am using a distinction which is not widely employed. That is because I take these subjects seriously enough to seek real answers. I understand that you are more comfortable not making any such distinctions, and recognize that a coherent conversation on these subjects without such distinctions is a total waste of time. I apologize for wasting yours.

i dont understand the mechanism by which the non-physical works in the creative act, or how it interferes with physical determinism to create free will. having no qualities in common with matter lends me the idea that we cant understand the mechanism of that interaction in mathematically describable terms that satisfies the empirically scientific mind, but by all means continue the search for such evidence of interaction. i would be interested to know myself. that only proves my contention that there is no possible scientific explanation for our origins, real science only deals with empirically verifiable phenomenon, by its very non-physical nature, first cause is excluded from the field of physically verifiable inquiry.

to assign physical properties assumes terms recognizable to physics not intrinsic properties of the non-physical, i understand the tendency. its like assigning an object or animal human qualities. in this case you assign “physics qualities” to an unknown metaphysical structure because its natural to do so, but not because those qualities are really present in that structure.

to define it as physical is to assume those properties, regardless of what it actually consists of.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is exactly what I am saying. You understand correctly.

i thought mass was lost in the fusion process, what am i missing here? is there an article that explains how you mean this? i dont care to ask for resources usually, but im thouroughly confused now as to this idea that new matter is created in stars.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey,
The notion that the human soul is non-physical, and that the Creator of the Universe is non-physical.

These definitions have no purpose that I can determine other than to forestall a serious investigation of either, and to prevent any objective understanding of either. What I find particularly curious is that after declaring God and soul to be non-physical, religions make up all sorts of things about their interaction with the physical.

Other non-physical inventions are heaven, hell, and angels.

the idea of G-ds form as spirit is scriptural, i doubt 5,000 years ago the first Jews thought anything about the verifiable nature of G-d, they lived with it everyday. there were no plans made for some museum to hold mana or moses staff.

they didnt make it up, they saw it, ate the mana, drank the water so to speak.

Yep, pretty much. Except for the theology I devised which is derived from physical evidence and the established principles of classical physics. (Which means it can be verified.)

There wouldn’t be much point in my complaining about poor ideas unless I thought there were better ones.

i dont do theology, i do metaphysics. the church does theology.

 

[TeresaofRoses]

The personification of God, Angels as well as Satan and his minions have pretty much taken the notion of ‘nothing’ out of the equation, I would think. Has this all occured out of spontaneous generation? I think not.

 

[greylorn]

i dont understand the mechanism by which the non-physical works in the creative act, or how it interferes with physical determinism to create free will. having no qualities in common with matter lends me the idea that we cant understand the mechanism of that interaction in mathematically describable terms that satisfies the empirically scientific mind, but by all means continue the search for such evidence of interaction. i would be interested to know myself. that only proves my contention that there is no possible scientific explanation for our origins, real science only deals with empirically verifiable phenomenon, by its very non-physical nature, first cause is excluded from the field of physically verifiable inquiry.

to assign physical properties assumes terms recognizable to physics not intrinsic properties of the non-physical, i understand the tendency. its like assigning an object or animal human qualities. in this case you assign “physics qualities” to an unknown metaphysical structure because its natural to do so, but not because those qualities are really present in that structure.

to define it as physical is to assume those properties, regardless of what it actually consists of.

You are only correct here if one considers attempting to explain God in terms of known physical quantities. I would no more attempt to define such an entity in terms of matter, charge, or electromagnetic fields than I would attribute human-like emotions to Him. I merely propose that there is a component of the physical universe yet to be recognized by science.

Isn’t it curious that you are unwilling to consider the notion that God is a real, physical entity, yet, as a Catholic, believe in a God who shares the same emotional characteristics as humans? That strikes me as a bizarre notion, accepted only because humans want to believe in a creator with Whom they can identify.

 

[greylorn]

the idea of G-ds form as spirit is scriptural, i doubt 5,000 years ago the first Jews thought anything about the verifiable nature of G-d, they lived with it everyday. there were no plans made for some museum to hold mana or moses staff.

they didnt make it up, they saw it, ate the mana, drank the water so to speak.

Actually, the Jews did invent (make up) the concept of God as a spirit. They correctly realized that the Creator was not of material form. Lacking any knowledge of physics, they concocted the notion of spirit, which for them meant non-material.

When physics discovered the intangible side of reality, the interesting non-material energy forms which actually make the universe work, religions neglected to notice their wonderful opportunity to extend the God concept, and chose to remain in the dark ages.

i dont do theology, i do metaphysics. the church does theology.

That’s kind of like understanding how the universe works, but without doing any physics.

Metaphysics is about the beginning of the universe. Your writings suggest that you believe the universe to be created by God. Saying that you do not study the nature and properties of the Creator implies that you really don’t do metaphysics either. And probably not any serious physics.

It seems as though you’re showing up for a Chicago Bears tryout wearing a 19th century Cubs uniform and carrying an old but favorite catcher’s mitt.

 

[greylorn]

i thought mass was lost in the fusion process, what am i missing here? is there an article that explains how you mean this? i dont care to ask for resources usually, but im thouroughly confused now as to this idea that new matter is created in stars.

I invite you to return to my post on this and read it more than once. Else, take a basic course in atomic physics.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Actually, the Jews did invent (make up) the concept of God as a spirit. They correctly realized that the Creator was not of material form. Lacking any knowledge of physics, they concocted the notion of spirit, which for them meant non-material.

When physics discovered the intangible side of reality, the interesting non-material energy forms which actually make the universe work, religions neglected to notice their wonderful opportunity to extend the God concept, and chose to remain in the dark ages.

Are you saying that God is space?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I merely propose that there is a component of the physical universe yet to be recognized by science.

Isn’t it curious that you are unwilling to consider the notion that God is a real, physical entity, yet, as a Catholic, believe in a God who shares the same emotional characteristics as humans? That strikes me as a bizarre notion, accepted only because humans want to believe in a creator with Whom they can identify.

theology of the statement aside, a physical G-d would require a cause also, its eliminated on those metaphysical grounds.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, the Jews did invent (make up) the concept of God as a spirit. They correctly realized that the Creator was not of material form. Lacking any knowledge of physics, they concocted the notion of spirit, which for them meant non-material.

it was revealed to them, as opposed to an invention. we can debate the point, but that is what we believe.

When physics discovered the intangible side of reality, the interesting non-material energy forms which actually make the universe work, religions neglected to notice their wonderful opportunity to extend the God concept, and chose to remain in the dark ages.

the Church has a great many scientists, philosophers, and theologians, they exclude the idea on the same basis as above, along with it being a violation of Scripture as far as i know

That’s kind of like understanding how the universe works, but without doing any physics

.

i dont get the anaology here, you seem to draw theological concepts from physical observation. is that what your getting at?

Metaphysics is about the beginning of the universe.

i like this definition from the web. dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphysical

1. Philosophy. a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
   b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.

Your writings suggest that you believe the universe to be created by God. Saying that you do not study the nature and properties of the Creator

could you post the specific qoute of mine you are referring to? i dont remember saying anything like that.

implies that you really don’t do metaphysics either. And probably not any serious physics.

you misunderstand what metaphysics is.

that said, i doubt you would find much favor among working physicists for theology based in physics.

so maybe you misunderstand what serious physics is.

It seems as though you’re showing up for a Chicago Bears tryout wearing a 19th century Cubs uniform and carrying an old but favorite catcher’s mitt.

truth doesnt depend on the time frame. or the game played to find it.

did you have anything to say about the premises of the argument, or is this just a dodge claiming my arguments are false based on me, and not on their structural integrity?

i suspect that if you had an evidenced refutation of my position, you would have offered it by now.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You are only correct here if one considers attempting to explain God in terms of known physical quantities. I would no more attempt to define such an entity in terms of matter, charge, or electromagnetic fields than I would attribute human-like emotions to Him. I merely propose that there is a component of the physical universe yet to be recognized by science.

Isn’t it curious that you are unwilling to consider the notion that God is a real, physical entity, yet, as a Catholic, believe in a God who shares the same emotional characteristics as humans?

Eh. First, nobody says that God shares our emotions in the same exact sense that we experience them. Secondly we know that calling God personal or emotional, doesn’t really justify what God is. We use those terms as analogies because we know that God cannot be anything less then a person. God is far greater then we can understand or truly describe, however we know that God is at least personal, thus we describe God in human terms because this is what is understandable to us despite the anthropomorphic implications and limitations.

Thirdly, why do you assume that emotion is purely a physical phenomena?

Do you believe that there is an atom or a physical pattern that is objective happiness or love or even anger?

These things do not make sense in terms of traditional or any new interpretation of physics.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I invite you to return to my post on this and read it more than once. Else, take a basic course in atomic physics.

i read your post and took the course. thats the reason why i misunderstand your statement.

can you provide any evidence for the position that matter is created in stars? not merely changing structure into heavier elements, but rather the actual mass of the star increases from this creation?

what were you saying about serious physics again?

 

[greylorn]

theology of the statement aside, a physical G-d would require a cause also, its eliminated on those metaphysical grounds.

You are correct that a physical Creator would have a beginning. (As would a Creator capable of imaginative thought, which is precluded by Christian dogma.)

I know of no metaphysical principles or philosophical logic that would exclude such a possibility. It is worth noting that one of the fundamental laws of physics declares that energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is no metaphysical or philosophical complaint against this law of which I am aware. Do you have one, or are you breathing through a straw here?

There is, however, a religious complaint, since the first law of thermodynamics is contrary to the opinion that God created the universe from nothing.

Clearly there will be objections to the idea that God had an origin on religious grounds, but we should not be confusing religious dogma with metaphysical speculation.

 

[Eucharisted]

A vaccuum is an empty space. Space is material. It is made of atoms or subatomic particles.
Nothing is nothing. It is neither material nor spiritual. There are no atoms or particles in it.

God is eternal. He has no beginning or end.
God created time and space. He created the space-time continuum (the Universe).
God existed before time was created, because He is eternal.
Nothing can exist before it is created.
Nothing existed before God created the Universe.
Hence, God created the Universe from nothing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are correct that a physical Creator would have a beginning. (As would a Creator capable of imaginative thought, which is precluded by Christian dogma.)

I know of no metaphysical principles or philosophical logic that would exclude such a possibility. It is worth noting that one of the fundamental laws of physics declares that energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is no metaphysical or philosophical complaint against this law of which I am aware. Do you have one, or are you breathing through a straw here?

cause excludes it, cause excludes any physical origin. something must exist in order to act, if it doesn not exist it cannot act to form itself.

it violates the most basic principles of causality.

There is, however, a religious complaint, since the first law of thermodynamics is contrary to the opinion that God created the universe from nothing.

only if G-d is physical, and a physical G-d is excluded above.

Clearly there will be objections to the idea that God had an origin on religious grounds, but we should not be confusing religious dogma with metaphysical speculation.

causality is the priimary reason G-d, doesnt need an origin, causality only applies to the physical as far as we know.

 

[Jerry_Vilt]

IF one postulates INFINITE POWER, then:

Creation (all of existence) is that which proceeds from absolute nothing.

 

[MindOverMatter]

IF one postulates INFINITE POWER, then:

Creation (all of existence) is that which proceeds from absolute nothing.

How could something which has infinite power proceed from absolute nothing?
If that were true then it would not have infinite power.

If all existence proceeded from nothing, then you are saying that there was such a thing as nothing. Thats impossible.
t