Astronomy
Star Wars Movies
Science Fiction and Fantasy Movies

What is 'nothingness' as it relates to astronomy and space?

User Avatar
Wiki User
May 01, 2010 3:32AM

Here I will make a short attempt to analyze whether or not

Nothing exists. This has undoubtedly been done many times before,

and I must admit that I have not studied the subject before so I

could be making well-known mistakes. Fortunately I won't feel

embarrassed, because after all I am only a student.

Every particle has at least one property, and vacuum is seen in

the context of space. Even the number 0 has a property, namely that

it is a number. If it is a number, then it is something, and thus

it is not Nothing. Nothing has no dimension or measurable property.

Everything scientific has at least some value or meaning, but

Nothing does not. The best way to define it is to say that it

cannot be defined. It is exactly that abstract concept, for which

any attempt to define it will fail. No definition can be

constructed, because the smallest possible definition is already

too large.

In order to understand what I will try to tell, what I mean by

Nothing, it is essential to step out of the closed framework of

logic and reason. In this discussion and by my definition, the

fundamentals of logic can potentially become meaningless, so

expecting to have them as support is expecting to fail. Once the

barriers of logic have been breached, Nothing can come into

existence. When reason cannot find the next step, intuition will

know a way. It is up to you to either follow that intuition, or to

go back to the fundamentally correct world of logic.

Does Nothing exist? This is not an easy question, but

fortunately we know something about Nothing. We know that if it

does exist, then we cannot define it, not in words and not in logic

or mathematics. Therefore, by using a formal approach we can never

prove its existence, because it cannot be expressed in formal

science as a result of its definition. Although it appears to be

impossible, let's try a logical analysis to see where we fail. We

can assume that something exists, because otherwise Nothing exists

and this analysis would already be concluded. One would think that

if something exists, it cannot be possible that Nothing exists.

Case distinction gives us the following:

Case A: It is the case that Nothing does not exist. This is in

line with our assumption.

Case B: It is the case that Nothing exists. The world (all that

exists) contains Nothing. This combined with the assumption that

something exists results in a contradiction, because there cannot

be something and Nothing at the same time.

Imagine two people taking opposite sides here. Person A claims

that Nothing does not exist. He follows pure logic, and the

contradiction in case B forces him to case A. Person B claims that

Nothing does exist. He knows that with this opinion, he faces a

contradiction in his logic, so his reasoning does not appear to be

correct.

Person A must think that person B has a very strange sense of

logic, because person B believes that a contradiction can be true.

With such reversed-logic reasoning, any attempt to prove to person

B that Nothing does not exist will inevitably fail. If a

contradiction could be equal to True, then for person A the logical

conclusion would have been that it is possible for Nothing to exist

in the first place.

Person B cannot show to person A exactly what Nothing is,

because it is per definition undefinable. Even worse, in order to

understand that Nothing exists, person B has had to accept that a

contradiction is true. Because person A does not allow

contradictions to be true, person A will never accept any proof

based on such an assumption.

Person A is easy to follow, and he has no reason to doubt his

own logic, because it is at the core of our science, and science

has proved itself. Person B thinks that a contradiction can be true

and because of this, logically, his belief in Nothing is

justified.

Whose side would you pick in the discussion between person A and

B? Or would you rather watch from a distance, satisfied with your

own creative solution?

With the introduction of (my version of) Nothing, I have

introduced something that cannot be comprehended by logic or any

other formal science, as a result of its own definition. What is

exactly this abstract concept, that science cannot comprehend? I

think that if Nothing exists, then it is certainly the

contradiction that results in True. The one thing that formal

science cannot comprehend. The undefinable concept, defined only by

being undefinable, thus only defined in terms of itself. It is the

golden median, and it is the only true universal constant, because

it explains the entire world as a result of its definition. Because

it is timeless, it is always there, and because it has no position,

it is everywhere. Because of Nothing, everything is possible, and

if everything is possible, then everything is Nothing.

I think I have found Nothing.


Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.