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