How can something come from nothing?

[Linusthe2nd]

Then you’re not doing philosophy, instead you’re making a scientific hypothesis.

I would say you are unlikely to be correct. For instance, imagine a location in intergalactic space where the nearest galaxies are so far away they are mere specks. Now imagine at this position, a tiny cube of space of side one tenth of an inch observed for one tenth of a second. It would seem probable that at least on some occasions the volume will be empty, disproving your hypothesis. If not, simply keep reducing the volume and the observation period by factors of ten. You might argue that it’s not truly empty by claiming there are continuous fields which are always present, but then you’d be making another scientific hypothesis which you’d have to test.

But you can’t prove it one way or the other, and no philosopher will take you word for it, as the philosopher knows that a volume can be empty in principle.

---

I highlighted your “it is impossible for ’ nothingness ’ to exist” as that argument is used by some to dispense with God: nothing can’t exist so there has to be something rather than nothing, QED.

Right, I can’t prove it is correct. It is pure speculation. But it has philosophical, theological, and scientific argumentative support, as I have tried to show. Read the rest of my posts on the question. I don’t expect anyone to " take my word for it, " I just ask them to think about it.

I don’t think I have ever heard that the phrase, " it is impossible for ’ nothingness ’ to exist " as an argument against the existence of God. I suspect some folks were reading out of context. And of course no one can prevent that. I don’t remember saying that, simply. If I did I simply forgot to place it in the proper context. If I said it, what I meant was that, in the natural order it is impossible for ’ nothing ’ to exist, because ’ nothing ’ is non-being and non-being cannot exist by definition. But, although the natural order might not exist, God always exists because he is a Spirit who is his own reason for existing, he is the fullness of being, having no cause.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As I said, you are equating the word “empty” with pure nothingness.

No, it is people like Krause who take that liberty. I am answering them. They say that some areas of outer space are ’ empty. ’ That is tantamount to saying that there is ’ nothing ’ in these areas and that is simply not true, for ’ nothing ’ means non-being and non-being means non-existence…

That is not how the word is used.

You should tell them that.

According to your argument, the word “empty” can never accurately describe anything at all.

The word can be used analogically. But when scientists use it they should be careful to define exactly what they mean.

We know you’re wrong because people describe things as being empty all the time.

Of course, normally it causes no problem because we are saying things like: " the gas tank is ’ empty ’ ( of gasoline ), or my glass is ’ empty ’ ( of wine ), etc. But if I say " some areas of outer space are ’ empty, ’ that causes confusion because the ordinary person thinks I mean that it contains ’ nothing. ’ And that is wrong because it is full of all kinds of stuff - gravity, energy, waves, radiation, all kinds of forces, perhaps even aether.

Quantum fields are not made of matter. More closely, matter is “made of” the quantum fields. But even that isn’t all that true, its more complicated than that.

You can think of the quantum fields as being like a huge lake that is completely still. When the field gets excited, its like a wave or bump on the surface of that lake. Those “bumps” show up in our experience as matter.

When there are no excitations in the field, there is no matter. The lake is totally still.

But the lake, itself, is still sitting there as a thing in its own right. Too, the quantum fields exists as something even when they are not excited and no matter exists.

I would say that if the ’ excited ’ quantum field is the ultimate stuff of matter, then the ’ excited ’ quantum field is some kind of prime or proto-matter. It is a rudimentary matter. And if this proto-matter is derived of a placid or unexcited quantum field, then this unexcited field is even a more rudimentary form of matter. That is unless you are saying that it is ’ nothing. ’ at all. But philosophically that could not be because in the created universe ’ something ’ cannot come from ’ nothing.’

When scientists talk about empty space, they are talking about something that actually exists.

Well then, they should not keep us in suspense, they should tell us what makes this ’ empty’ space ’ something. ’ They just cannot say that ‘empty’ space is ’ something, ’ because that is a mere tautology.

Space without matter in it can exist as a thing. That would be referred to as empty space.

And that is what is wrong. If one says that, then ’ empty ’ means ’ nothing.’ And ‘nothing,’ by definition, cannot exist. In that case ’ empty’ space does not exist, in that case there is no such thing as a ’ void. ’ And that is true; there is no such thing as ’ empty space, ’ and there is no such thing as a ’ void. ’

It is not always some derivative of matter. Electromagnetic fields are not matter. Protons are not matter. Both of those are things that can exist in space where there is no matter.

I should have defined ’ matter ’ more carefully. By ’ matter ’ I mean any created substance outside of spirits ( souls or angels ). By this definition, even electromagnetic fields, strong/weak forces, quarks, electrons, positrons, neutrons, protons, photons, gravity, energy, aether, etc. are all ‘matter.’ The only difference is that some of these forms of matter are the constituent elements of other substantive natures and some are rather solitary, plasma like forms of matter.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

CatSi post 121 continued.

Again, its closer to the truth to say that the matter is a derivative of the quantum fields, not the other way around.

Let’s just say that some substantive natures ( forms of matter ) are derivatives of more elementary substantive natures ( more elementary forms of matter).

“Empty” does not denote pure nothingness.

I would be quite happy to see the term ’ empty space ’ dropped. Instead we should say that there are large areas of outer space filled with very rudimentary but substantive natures or elementary forms of matter. That way the problem of ’ nothingness ’ will not arise.

You said, " Matter is an excitation of the quantum field. When there are no excitations, you don’t have matter but you still have the field there."

I responded, " That is a contradiction of terms and arbitrary. "

You responded, " No that is both pertinent and correct. "

My explanation above should take care of that. Because by my definition, even a placid field is some rudimentary form of matter. Even a placid quantum field is some form of rudimentary matter.

The whole point is that nothing that exists in the universe comes from nothing. God created it all. And God creates something, real substantive natures, however rudimentary and subtle. He does not create ’ nothing, ’ ( I am exculding spirits which God also created, I am talking about the material universe. ).

Wrong, electromagnetic fields and protons are two things that can exist in a space that is void of matter.

Through the analysis I have given we see that there is no void, no ’ empty space, ’ because by my analysis electromagnetic fields, etc. are primary or rudimentary forms of matter.

Further, matter is composed of even smaller particles. There’s hadrons and fermions and leptons and baryon and all kinds of non-matter stuff that exists in our universe.

No problem at all. Each is some form of rudimentary matter, some elementary, substantive nature.

When I said, " But there are still ’ forces ’ present and these are derivatives of matter. Therefore there is matter present and that means there is no ’ empty ’ space present., " you responded, " Sure, but that is not what is meant by empty space."

( I have since acknowledged that these ’ forces ’ are rudimentary forms of matter from which more substantive forms are derived. )

But it should be what is meant by " empty space, " otherwise the public jumps to the conclusion that nothing is there and that the cosmologists are correct when they say the universe created itself out of nothing…

You are describing nothingness. Empty space is not nothingness.

Then it should not be called ’ empty. ’

Now all you have to do is realize that the word “empty” as used to describe space does not mean nothingness.

And all scientists and cosmologists need to do is stop using the phrase ’ empty space ’ because it misleads the public.

Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

And all scientists and cosmologists need to do is stop using the phrase ’ empty space ’ because it misleads the public.

[deleted] Science does not need to be hindered so that laypeople can get it.

If you have a problem with scientific terminology, then that is your problem not science’s problem.

By ’ matter ’ I mean any created substance outside of spirits ( the souls or angels ). By this definition, even electromagnetic fields, strong/weak forces, quarks, electrons, positrons, neutrons, protons, photons, gravity, energy, aether, etc. are all ‘matter.’

Nope, you don’t get to make up your own definitions of words.

That is simply not what matter is.

Of course, normally it causes no problem because we are saying things like: " the gas tank is ’ empty ’ ( of gasoline ), or my glass is ’ empty ’ ( of wine ), etc.

Right, and when scientists talk about empty space they are saying the space is empty (of matter). With the real definition of matter, not the bogus one that you made up.

But when scientists use it they should be careful to define exactly what they mean.

Its not scientists’ fault that you cannot be bothered to learn the definitions of the words they use.

You have the internet at your fingertips… go learn something. You’re way out of your league on this one.

Here, I’ll help you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_space

Physics

Outer space, especially the relatively empty regions of the universe outside the atmospheres of celestial bodies

Vacuum, a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure

Free space, a perfect vacuum as expressed in the classical physics model

Vacuum state, a perfect vacuum based on the quantum mechanical model

In mathematical physics, the homogeneous equation may correspond to a physical theory formulated in empty space

Void, empty space.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

Outer space, or simply just space, is the void that exists between celestial bodies, including the Earth. It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles: predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust and cosmic rays.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

Vacuum is space that is devoid of matter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy

Cosmic voids are the vast empty spaces between filaments (the largest-scale structures in the Universe), which contain very few, or no, galaxies.

I mean, this is all really basic stuff here.

You don’t get to just make up your own definitions of words and then use those definitions to say that science has gotten something wrong.

And if you don’t understand the science, that is no fault of the scientists.

Well then, they should not keep us in suspense, they should tell us what makes this ’ empty’ space ’ something.

What do you think I’ve been trying to do?

If you’d take a moment to actually try to learn something, instead of digging your heels in and being argumentative, then maybe you wouldn’t be in so much suspense.

Really, you don’t even know the definition of “matter”… Geez!

If one says that, then ’ empty ’ means ’ nothing.’ And ‘nothing,’ by definition, cannot exist.

So then, according to this argument, a vacuum cannot exist because it is a space that is void of matter.

Since vacuums do exist, we know your argument is wrong.

 

[Winterwolf00]

What’s really going to bake your noodle is the question “what is space expanding into?”

Space cannot expand into nothing.

The expansion of space supposedly had a beginning from an infinitesimal point.

Therefore space cannot be expanding into space.

So what sense can we make of spatial expansion?

Seeing as the Universe from what we can observe is the totality of everything then it isn’t expanding ‘into’ anything, it’s merely expanding, and if the math and observations are correct it will eventually stop expanding and instead start to shrink.

 

[Winterwolf00]

No offense, but screw the public. Science does not need to be hindered so that laypeople can get it.

If you have a problem with scientific terminology, then that is your problem not science’s problem.

Nope, you don’t get to make up your own definitions of words.

That is simply not what matter is.

Right, and when scientists talk about empty space they are saying the space is empty (of matter). With the real definition of matter, not the bogus one that you made up.

Its not scientists’ fault that you cannot be bothered to learn the definitions of the words they use.

You have the internet at your fingertips… go learn something. You’re way out of your league on this one.

Here, I’ll help you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_space

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy

I mean, this is all really basic stuff here.

You don’t get to just make up your own definitions of words and then use those definitions to say that science has gotten something wrong.

And if you don’t understand the science, that is no fault of the scientists.

What do you think I’ve been trying to do?

If you’d take a moment to actually try to learn something, instead of digging your heels in and being argumentative, then maybe you wouldn’t be in so much suspense.

Really, you don’t even know the definition of “matter”… Geez!

So then, according to this argument, a vacuum cannot exist because it is a space that is void of matter.

Since vacuums do exist, we know your argument is wrong.

Can I just give you a thumbs up for that?
Seriously, too many people want to just argue against scientific terms and concepts without even knowing what they are.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No offense, but screw the public. Science does not need to be hindered so that laypeople can get it.

If you have a problem with scientific terminology, then that is your problem not science’s problem.

Nope, you don’t get to make up your own definitions of words.

That is simply not what matter is.

Right, and when scientists talk about empty space they are saying the space is empty (of matter). With the real definition of matter, not the bogus one that you made up.

Its not scientists’ fault that you cannot be bothered to learn the definitions of the words they use.

You have the internet at your fingertips… go learn something. You’re way out of your league on this one.

Here, I’ll help you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_space

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy

I mean, this is all really basic stuff here.

You don’t get to just make up your own definitions of words and then use those definitions to say that science has gotten something wrong.

And if you don’t understand the science, that is no fault of the scientists.

What do you think I’ve been trying to do?

If you’d take a moment to actually try to learn something, instead of digging your heels in and being argumentative, then maybe you wouldn’t be in so much suspense.

Really, you don’t even know the definition of “matter”… Geez!

So then, according to this argument, a vacuum cannot exist because it is a space that is void of matter.

Since vacuums do exist, we know your argument is wrong.

And science is not the arbiter of definitions. I have defined my terms. By my definition there would exist no void in space and no ’ empty space. ’

If true vacuums existed and if " empty space ’ truly existed that would mean that God created non-being which is contradictory. God always creates something. See all my posts above for the argument. So I am proposing that people think it over - but without gettin all worked up over it, just think about it. And really, no one can prove it one way or another. But I think one can see which is the more proper position.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Winterwolf00]

And science is not the arbiter of definitions. I have defined my terms. By my definition there would exist no void in space and no ’ empty space. ’

If true vacuums existed and if " empty space ’ truly existed that would mean that God created non-being which is contradictory. God always creates something. See all my posts above for the argument. So I am proposing that people think it over - but without gettin all worked up over it, just think about it. And really, no one can prove it one way or another. But I think one can see which is the more proper position.

Pax
Linus2nd

Then don’t be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion when you just define words as is convenient for you.

 

[CatSci]

Seeing as the Universe from what we can observe is the totality of everything then it isn’t expanding ‘into’ anything, it’s merely expanding, and if the math and observations are correct it will eventually stop expanding and instead start to shrink.

Ah yes, the Big Crunch. There’s a couple Cyclic Models posted on wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

I’m partial to the heat death, though:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

I don’t see the expansion stopping. [deleted], its still accelerating.

And thanks for the thumbs up. Its nice to know that some people appreciate reading what you wrote.

 

[CatSci]

And science is not the arbiter of definitions. I have defined my terms. By my definition there would exist no void in space and no ’ empty space. ’

But you are wrong and science is right. And science works, your made-up definitions do not.

They create, define, use, and make practical the words we’re using and they get jobs done with them and make the world a better place. So yes, they are the arbiter of definitions.

You can certainly disagree, but you’ll just be wrong… as you are.

If true vacuums existed and if " empty space ’ truly existed that would mean that God created non-being which is contradictory.

Complete and utter nonsense.

God always creates something. See all my posts above for the argument.

I’ve read them, they’re bad arguments.

So I am proposing that people think it over - but without gettin all worked up over it, just think about it.

Done and rejected.

And really, no one can prove it one way or another.

[deleted]

No, we can tell. You are wrong.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But you are wrong and science is right. And science works, your made-up definitions do not.

They create, define, use, and make practical the words we’re using and they get jobs done with them and make the world a better place. So yes, they are the arbiter of definitions.

You can certainly disagree, but you’ll just be wrong… as you are.

Complete and utter nonsense.

I’ve read them, they’re bad arguments.

Done and rejected.

Ah yes, the last ditch effort of a charlatan: “I might be wrong but you can’t tell one way or the other”

No, we can tell. You are wrong.

Well, you’re opinion is clear enough .

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

Well, you’re opinion is clear enough .

Pax
Linus2nd

It is unfortunate that your pride has stifled your learning ability.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then don’t be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion when you just define words as is convenient for you.

From Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1956

’ Empty ’

1. Containing nothing
2. Vacant, unoccupied
3. Destitute of reality or substance

It seems that it is not I who is redefining words but those cosmologists/scientists who insist that ’ empty space ’ is a ’ thing, ’ that it is ’ something, ’ that it contains gravity, radiation, photons, etc., which they say amounts to ’ nothing. ’

I on the other hand name a thing for what it actually is. If it is ’ empty ’ it cannot be ’ something, ’ that it is ’ nothing, ’ that it does not exist.

Cheers

An interesting and enlightening discussion indeed - for several reasons!.

Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

Oh wow, now you’ve resorted to argument via dictionary? Don’t you know those are the lamest arguments possible?

From Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1956

’ Empty ’

1. Containing nothing
2. Vacant, unoccupied
3. Destitute of reality or substance

Not only that, but you’ve had to go back almost 60 years to find a definition that suites your purpose.

That should be telling you something. We’ve learned a lot over the last 60 years and words need to be updated as their usage drifts.

It seems that it is not I who is redefining words but those cosmologists/scientists who insist that ’ empty space ’ is a ’ thing, ’ that it is ’ something, ’

Dictionaries are descriptive, they are not proscriptive. That is, words don’t mean what they do because the dictionary says they do, rather the dictionary says what they do because that is what the words mean in how they are used.

Therefore, the dictionary proves nothing other than some of the ways that people use words. [deleted]

that it contains gravity, radiation, photons, etc., which they say amounts to ’ nothing. ’

Now that’s just a bald faced lie. I just explained to you how empty space means that the space is empty of matter. I also explained that those things mentioned above are not matter so they actually can exist within empty space.

I even provided you wikipedia articles that explain that empty space is not actually totally empty of everything, it is just empty of matter.

I on the other hand name a thing for what it actually is. If it is ’ empty ’ it cannot be ’ something, ’ that it is ’ nothing, ’ that it does not exist.

Words aren’t static. Their definitions evolve. There’s no benefit to holding on to old out-dated definitions.

[deleted]

Funnily enough, if I look up the word “empty” in a modern dictionary, it totally proves you wrong:

From: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empty

1
a : containing nothing
b : not occupied or inhabited
c : unfrequented
d : not pregnant
e : null 4a
2
a : lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow
b : destitute of effect or force
c : devoid of sense : foolish
3
: hungry
4
a : idle
b : having no purpose or result : useless
5
: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort

Oh look, containing nothing… like empty shelves. Just like I explained that you can have an empty cup even though there is technically air in there.

In the same way, you can have empty space even though technically there is non-matter stuff in there.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Seeing as the Universe from what we can observe is the totality of everything then it isn’t expanding ‘into’ anything, it’s merely expanding, and if the math and observations are correct it will eventually stop expanding and instead start to shrink.

Then it is expanding into the absence of reality, which makes no sense either since the absence of reality does not exist. It’s logically impossible for a finite expanding being to exist in nothing or come into nothing since nothing is the absence of being. What sense does it make to say that space is expanding when it is not expanding into anything. It is expanding outwardly which (name removed by moderator)lies that it is taking up space.

I am not really interested in arguing that the universe is expanding into space, but rather i am just trying to point out that there is something missing from the equation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then don’t be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion when you just define words as is convenient for you.

As my post # 231 points out, it is not I who is redefining words. In any dictionary of note, down to the present date, the word ’ empty ’ always contains the conotation of " the absence of any reality. " In other words its root meaning is equivalent to non-being or non-existence of any reality.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

As my post # 231 points out, it is not I who is redefining words. In any dictionary of note, down to the present date, the word ’ empty ’ always contains the conotation of " the absence of any reality. " In other words its root meaning is equivalent to non-being or non-existence of any reality.

Linus2nd

That is not true. Empty implies that some “thing” is empty in comparison to being potentially full. It’s relatively empty in respect of some other possible object. Space in and of itself is not emptiness. It is merely empty of other physical forms or natures. It is not however empty of all physicality and reality.

I don’t see how you got to “the absence of any reality”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh wow, now you’ve resorted to argument via dictionary? Don’t you know those are the lamest arguments possible?

They are compiled by professionals of the highest caliber. If one is going to stray from the meaning of the words thay contain one should be very carful to explain just how one is employing the word - which I have done. It is some scientists and cosmologists who have failed to do so. It is their understanding of ’ empty ’ which strays beyond the bounds of common usage.

Not only that, but you’ve had to go back almost 60 years to find a definition that suites your purpose.

Not at all, it is one still in usage and is at my desk, I find it excellent indeed.

That should be telling you something. We’ve learned a lot over the last 60 years and words need to be updated as their usage drifts.

Indeed, things have changed, but the meanings of words have not changed so much. And if one is using " shop jargon, " which appears to be the case in the usage of ’ empty ’ by some scientists and cosmologists, then it is their duty to explain exactly what the meaning of that " jargon " is.

Dictionaries are descriptive, they are not proscriptive. That is, words don’t mean what they do because the dictionary says they do, rather the dictionary says what they do because that is what the words mean in how they are used.

But not in this case.

Therefore, the dictionary proves nothing other than some of the ways that people use words. [deleted]

As it should be.

Now that’s just a bald faced lie. I just explained to you how empty space means that the space is empty of matter. I also explained that those things mentioned above are not matter so they actually can exist within empty space.

No, it is not a lie, it is my understanding of reality. You see I do not accept your explanation. My understanding of matter is a perfect philosophical/theological understanding. Outside of spirits, anything which exists in this universe is composed of matter and that includes gravity, radiation, energy, photons, ultimate particles of all manner, all manner of ’ forces, ’ and even aether ( if that exists ), whatever is real in the universe. And ’ empty space ’ is not one of these things. You may indeed say, and some do say it, that there are areas of the universe in which no matter ( as I have defined it ) at all exists. But the burden of proof is on them. I have already stated my reasons why this cannot be.

I even provided you wikipedia articles that explain that empty space is not actually totally empty of everything, it is just empty of matter.

I don’t let Wikipedia do my thinking, especially on such a loaded topic…

Words aren’t static. Their definitions evolve. There’s no benefit to holding on to old out-dated definitions.

My meaning is not outdated. It is #2 on the list.

[deleted]

Funnily enough, if I look up the word “empty” in a modern dictionary, it totally proves you wrong:

From: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empty

Looks to be essentially what my dictionary said.

Oh look, containing nothing… like empty shelves. Just like I explained that you can have an empty cup even though there is technically air in there.

I explained the meaning I attached to the word. It is # 2 on the list: : lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value. So my definition falls well within the meaning of even modern dictionaries.

In the same way, you can have empty space even though technically there is non-matter stuff in there.

And according to the second meaning in your dictionary, which is the one I used and explained many times, there can be no matter or ’ stuff ’ in " empty space. " For some scientists and some cosmologists to claim that their stuff is " non-matter " just doesn’t pass the reality test. Either this stuff is matter, however ultimate and rudimentary, or it is nothing, it does not exist. But they tell us it exists. Therefore there is no such thing as a void or ’ empty space. ’ Now there may well be areas of the universe where there are no objects of a impassible nature, vast areas of passable matter ( as I have defined it ) and these can for practical purposes be called ’ empty ’ or ’ voids. ’ But let’s be careful to explain up front what we mean. Let’s warn the reader that we are using ’ void ’ and ’ empty space ’ in a qualified sense, and then explain very clearly how we are qualifying them.

Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

They are compiled by professionals of the highest caliber. If one is going to stray from the meaning of the words thay contain one should be very carful to explain just how one is employing the word - which I have done. It is some scientists and cosmologists who have failed to do so. It is their understanding of ’ empty ’ which strays beyond the bounds of common usage.

Not at all, it is one still in usage and is at my desk, I find it excellent indeed.

Indeed, things have changed, but the meanings of words have not changed so much. And if one is using " shop jargon, " which appears to be the case in the usage of ’ empty ’ by some scientists and cosmologists, then it is their duty to explain exactly what the meaning of that " jargon " is.

But not in this case.

As it should be.

No, it is not a lie, it is my understanding of reality. You see I do not accept your explanation. My understanding of matter is a perfect philosophical/theological understanding. Outside of spirits, anything which exists in this universe is composed of matter and that includes gravity, radiation, energy, photons, ultimate particles of all manner, all manner of ’ forces, ’ and even aether ( if that exists ), whatever is real in the universe. And ’ empty space ’ is not one of these things. You may indeed say, and some do say it, that there are areas of the universe in which no matter ( as I have defined it ) at all exists. But the burden of proof is on them. I have already stated my reasons why this cannot be.

I don’t let Wikipedia do my thinking, especially on such a loaded topic…

My meaning is not outdated. It is #2 on the list.

[deleted]

Looks to be essentially what my dictionary said.

I explained the meaning I attached to the word. It is # 2 on the list: : lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value. So my definition falls well within the meaning of even modern dictionaries.

And according to the second meaning in your dictionary, which is the one I used and explained many times, there can be no matter or ’ stuff ’ in " empty space. " For some scientists and some cosmologists to claim that their stuff is " non-matter " just doesn’t pass the reality test. Either this stuff is matter, however ultimate and rudimentary, or it is nothing, it does not exist. But they tell us it exists. Therefore there is no such thing as a void or ’ empty space. ’ Now there may well be areas of the universe where there are no objects of a impassible nature, vast areas of passable matter ( as I have defined it ) and these can for practical purposes be called ’ empty ’ or ’ voids. ’ But let’s be careful to explain up front what we mean. Let’s warn the reader that we are using ’ void ’ and ’ empty space ’ in a qualified sense, and then explain very clearly how we are qualifying them.

Linus2nd

The argument that the scientists are wrong and you are right because you are using different definitions of the words has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen.

But don’t bother, because I’m done with this place.

I didn’t realize the moderators would delete portions of my posts.

I won’t stand for that.

Goodbye everyone. Thanks for ruining my experience, Ben Quincy.

I can’t believe that you treat this place like high school and I’m getting reprimanded for using naughty words like retarded and ignorant.

That’s pathetic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is not true. Empty implies that some “thing” is empty in comparison to being potentially full. It’s relatively empty in respect of some other possible object. Space in and of itself is not emptiness. It is merely empty of other physical forms or natures. It is not however empty of all physicality and reality.

Have you read all my posts here? I don’t wish to go over them all again on this post or again on this thread.

I don’t see how you got to “the absence of any reality”

See # 2.a. from the Webster’s dictionary used by CatSi in post # 232, it would be # 4 in my own dictionary. So my definition " absence of all reality or substance " has risen two levels in the range of common usage and acceptance.

Linus2nd