Nothing is not, therefore

[Qoeleth]

It seems true to say that “Nothingness does not exist.” Now, we mistakenly perceive the world to be a mixture of nothingness (space) and matter (something). But, given that nothingness is, by definition, nothing, it does not exist. Hence all that ‘is’ must be something that is (i.e. matter of some kind).

Now, if nothingness or ‘space’ does not exist, it follows that motion is impossible, as their could be no space in which matter could move. Also, all matter must be solid and undivided, since no nothingess could intervene (again, being non-existence). Similarly, motion, without the spaces of nothingness, is clearly impossible.

Now, if this undivided, solid matter had any end, ‘nothing’ would follow and circumscribe it, either spatially or temporally. But since nothing does not exist, it is clear that this matter must be infinite and eternal.

Hence, it is clear that the universe consists only of a single, undivided, motionless, changeless, infinite and eternal mass of ‘is-ness’ (i.e. matter).

The only other possibility is to affirm that ‘nothing exists’- which, of course, implies that the universe itself does not exist.

So, either the universe is a solid, infinite, eternal, motionless, undivided lump of matter, or it does not exist at all.

Either way, it seems as if, by a purely logical process, we have arrived at a doctrine which necessarily results in instant and complete peace for all who subscribe to it…

 

[meltzerboy]

It seems true to say that “Nothingness does not exist.” Now, we mistakenly perceive the world to be a mixture of nothingness (space) and matter (something). But, given that nothingness is, by definition, nothing, it does not exist. Hence all that ‘is’ must be something that is (i.e. matter of some kind).

Now, if nothingness or ‘space’ does not exist, it follows that motion is impossible, as their could be no space in which matter could move. Also, all matter must be solid and undivided, since no nothingess could intervene (again, being non-existence). Similarly, motion, without the spaces of nothingness, is clearly impossible.

Now, if this undivided, solid matter had any end, ‘nothing’ would follow and circumscribe it, either spatially or temporally. But since nothing does not exist, it is clear that this matter must be infinite and eternal.

Hence, it is clear that the universe consists only of a single, undivided, motionless, changeless, infinite and eternal mass of ‘is-ness’ (i.e. matter).

The only other possibility is to affirm that ‘nothing exists’- which, of course, implies that the universe itself does not exist.

So, either the universe is a solid, infinite, eternal, motionless, undivided lump of matter, or it does not exist at all.

Either way, it seems as if, by a purely logical process, we have arrived at a doctrine which necessarily results in instant and complete peace for all who subscribe to it…

I wonder if nothingness is only a concept. That is because of the fairly recent discoveries of such things as dark matter which occupies space in the universe, space which physicists and astronomers had previously considered empty. If the concept of nothingness itself is nonsensical from a physical standpoint, would that impact your argument?

 

[Back2Church]

It seems true to say that “Nothingness does not exist.”
…
The only other possibility is to affirm that ‘nothing exists’- which, of course, implies that the universe itself does not exist.

I would say there’s a very big difference between nothing and nothingness. Your “only other possibility” does not follow from your argument. You should have said “nothingness does exists” as the alterantive possibility to “nothingness does not exist.” The idea that “nothing exists” is a completely different concept.

 

[Qoeleth]

I wonder if nothingness is only a concept. That is because of the fairly recent discoveries of such things as dark matter which occupies space in the universe, space which physicists and astronomers had previously considered empty. If the concept of nothingness itself is nonsensical from a physical standpoint, would that impact your argument?

Isn’t space (i.e. what is not matter) essentially nothingness? And therefore, I don’t see how it can exist…

I would say there’s a very big difference between nothing and nothingness. Your “only other possibility” does not follow from your argument. You should have said “nothingness does exists” as the alterantive possibility to “nothingness does not exist.” The idea that “nothing exists” is a completely different concept.

You are quite correct that the alternative was not well worded, and so my conclusion was hasty, that the only alternative was that nothing exists at all.

However, it does seem true that nothingness does not exist. Therefore, the ‘space’ which we imagine exists between matter cannot be anything, i.e. cannot exist. And, if there is no space, motion must be impossible, and the universe must be a single, infinite lump of changless, uniformly dense matter. I don’t see any alternative.

Or, is there some sense in which nothingness does, in fact, exist? Wouldn’t that go against the definition of nothingness?

 

[Bahman]

Space is not nothingness. Space is the degree of freedom within Mind.

 

[inocente]

Isn’t space (i.e. what is not matter) essentially nothingness? And therefore, I don’t see how it can exist…

No - physical space has volume while nothingness doesn’t.

A better analogy might be to think of space as a medium. What we call empty space is never really empty (for instance it contains rays of light from stars). Turns out that things are composed almost entirely of space (since the volume of an atom’s nucleus is a tiny fraction of the volume occupied by the atom). The presence of matter curves space(-time), we call that gravity. Space feels like molasses for anything with mass while light rays zip through. And so on.

Only an analogy, and like all analogies a tiny lie, but hope that helps.

 

[Back2Church]

Isn’t space (i.e. what is not matter) essentially nothingness? And therefore, I don’t see how it can exist…

You are quite correct that the alternative was not well worded, and so my conclusion was hasty, that the only alternative was that nothing exists at all.

However, it does seem true that nothingness does not exist. Therefore, the ‘space’ which we imagine exists between matter cannot be anything, i.e. cannot exist. And, if there is no space, motion must be impossible, and the universe must be a single, infinite lump of changless, uniformly dense matter. I don’t see any alternative.

Or, is there some sense in which nothingness does, in fact, exist? Wouldn’t that go against the definition of nothingness?

I get what you’re saying. But your conclusion that motion is impossible and the universe is a single lump of matter seems pretty counterintuitive. We clearly observe otherwise. So the question is if nothingness/space doesn’t exists, yet we observe distance between physical particles of matter as well as observe motion, then what is filling that “space?”

Your argument presents a model of the universe that does not include non-physical energy. Or, if you prefer, non-physical matter. So even though the idea of nothingness may not actually exist, the immediate conclusion is not that the universe is a single, solid lump of physical matter, but a mixture of physical and non-physical matter/energy. This non-physical “stuff” fills in the “space” we observe, which provides the distance between the physical “stuff”, allowing for motion to be possible.

 

[thecone137]

I get what you’re saying. But your conclusion that motion is impossible and the universe is a single lump of matter seems pretty counterintuitive. We clearly observe otherwise. So the question is if nothingness/space doesn’t exists, yet we observe distance between physical particles of matter as well as observe motion, then what is filling that “space?”

Your argument presents a model of the universe that does not include non-physical energy. Or, if you prefer, non-physical matter. So even though the idea of nothingness may not actually exist, the immediate conclusion is not that the universe is a single, solid lump of physical matter, but a mixture of physical and non-physical matter/energy. This non-physical “stuff” fills in the “space” we observe, which provides the distance between the physical “stuff”, allowing for motion to be possible.

If by non-physical matter you mean something that we cannot measure (yet), then yes, non-physical matter could be filling in the “space”.

To the OP, if everything is just one big lump, how can that lump itself be measured?

 

[Qoeleth]

I get what you’re saying. But your conclusion that motion is impossible and the universe is a single lump of matter seems pretty counterintuitive. We clearly observe otherwise. So the question is if nothingness/space doesn’t exists, yet we observe distance between physical particles of matter as well as observe motion, then what is filling that “space?”

Your argument presents a model of the universe that does not include non-physical energy. Or, if you prefer, non-physical matter. So even though the idea of nothingness may not actually exist, the immediate conclusion is not that the universe is a single, solid lump of physical matter, but a mixture of physical and non-physical matter/energy. This non-physical “stuff” fills in the “space” we observe, which provides the distance between the physical “stuff”, allowing for motion to be possible.

I have difficulty understanding ‘non-physical matter’. Would it be the same as some form of ‘imperceptible matter’? Or perhaps a ‘perceived thing’ with no substance behind it?

Or is it ‘pure energy’? But again, doesn’t energy require a material medium (e.g. heat requires matter to carry the heat, sound requires air, kinetic energy requires some matter to be moving).

Now, for something to ‘exist’ in this universe, it would seem to require both mass and extension.

Or does ‘non-physical matter’ open the door for Berkelian idealism?

 

[Qoeleth]

No - physical space has volume while nothingness doesn’t.

A better analogy might be to think of space as a medium. What we call empty space is never really empty (for instance it contains rays of light from stars). Turns out that things are composed almost entirely of space (since the volume of an atom’s nucleus is a tiny fraction of the volume occupied by the atom). The presence of matter curves space(-time), we call that gravity. Space feels like molasses for anything with mass while light rays zip through. And so on.

Only an analogy, and like all analogies a tiny lie, but hope that helps.

Hmm…so, you are suggesting that space can actually be filled with more rarified matter (perhaps 1 atom per cubic meter, rather than countless millions of atoms per cubic meter, as in air?) But, that still involves the problem of space, unless a non-atomist view of matter is adopted, that the substance itself becomes rarified, instead of being simply less densely dispersed atoms?

Is it better to speak of aether than of space, thus avoiding the problem of a misleading image of nothingness?

Can gravity be understood as the tendency for matter to arrive at a more uniform density, in which the more dense bits of matter (i.e. earth, water, air), replace the less dense portions of matter (i.e. aether, or space)?

Or do the particles in the aether (space) form curvatures, which direct movement in certain directions?

Could you clarify the link between space and time?

 

[Qoeleth]

If by non-physical matter you mean something that we cannot measure (yet), then yes, non-physical matter could be filling in the “space”.

To the OP, if everything is just one big lump, how can that lump itself be measured?

If, assuming nothingness does not exist, it follows that the lump must be infinite, since if it had any ends, it would be circumscribed by nothigness (which does not exist). Similarly, if there was anything apart from the lump (like a giant ruler with which one might use to measure it) that would require the existence of nothigness, by which was affected the separation of the giant ruler from the lump.

Therefore, the lump is infinite, and it alone exists. It can neither be measured, nor empirically demonstrated.

 

[inocente]

Hmm…so, you are suggesting that space can actually be filled with more rarified matter (perhaps 1 atom per cubic meter, rather than countless millions of atoms per cubic meter, as in air?) But, that still involves the problem of space, unless a non-atomist view of matter is adopted, that the substance itself becomes rarified, instead of being simply less densely dispersed atoms?

Is it better to speak of aether than of space, thus avoiding the problem of a misleading image of nothingness?

The main thing I’d say is - Plato’s cave. The history of science is to replace naive models of the world with more powerful models which give better explanations and predictions. But often they are philosophical bombshells, we thought we knew what the shadows on the cave wall meant, but no we did not.

For instance the geocentric motion of the planets is highly convoluted while heliocentric motion is simple ellipses. Which is great if you want to know where Venus will be next Tuesday but a philosophical bombshell for those who fondly believed the Earth was the center of the universe.

So, scientifically, we know that you, me and everything else is composed of 99.99999% space. Space is a medium through which light travels and in which objects sit, yet the Michelson–Morley experiment proved it’s not a medium (aether). Space forms a single continuum with time, spacetime, for instance we know that the faster something travels, the slower time passes for it (GPS depends on it). And so on.

Philosophically, bombshell after bombshell, those shadows on the wall speak of a world not dreamed of in any of our philosophies.

Can gravity be understood as the tendency for matter to arrive at a more uniform density, in which the more dense bits of matter (i.e. earth, water, air), replace the less dense portions of matter (i.e. aether, or space)?

No, gravity is the opposite. Gravity is the curving of spacetime by matter. A standard way to picture it is stretch out a rubber sheet (spacetime) and put a bowling ball in the center (the Sun) which of course curves the sheet down. Now if you put a pool ball on the sheet, obviously it rolls down to the Sun, you have to make it orbit the Sun to avoid that happening, although that doesn’t work very well with pool balls due to friction, etc.

Or do the particles in the aether (space) form curvatures, which direct movement in certain directions?

Not sure what you’re asking there.

Could you clarify the link between space and time?

The following video is good, it’s Kip Thorne of Caltech. If you watch the whole way through you’ll notice that spacetime forms a backdrop which is similar to how many people explain God’s view of events unfolding.

youtube.com/watch?v=mvdlN4H4T54