I mean there's no such thing as nothing in reality.

In language nothing exists.. zero 'exists' in mathmatics etc etc.

But what I mean is, there are many things, they are all something. There is no thing that is nothing because nothing is the absence of something, not something. Ergo in the external world, in reality - there is no such thing as nothing. It isn't some thing it is nothing.

It is not something that is capable of existing (as a 'thing' in reality) because it isn't something, it's nothing.

EvF

EvF,

What do you call the distance between the proton and the electron in a hydrogen atom?

Rhizo

<hops up and down in his seat, hand raised> I know, I know! Pick me!

I have no idea Rhizo...what's there? Is it empty space? I don't know much of the subject but I've heard the empty space in an atom is actually full of activity!

Empty space isn't necessarily nothing. If it was nothing then it wouldn't have activity - so if the empty space has activity then it's something and not nothing. But if it is nothing then it, indeed, isn't something and doesn't exist. Lol.

Nothing isn't something, it's nothing, therefore there is no 'thing' that exists that is nothing - there is no such thing as nothing (by definition lol).

EvF

(9th July 2009 15:12)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:  I have no idea Rhizo...what's there? Is it empty space? I don't know much of the subject but I've heard the empty space in an atom is actually full of activity!

Empty space isn't necessarily nothing. If it was nothing then it wouldn't have activity - so if the empty space has activity then it's something and not nothing. But if it is nothing then it, indeed, isn't something and doesn't exist. Lol.

Nothing isn't something, it's nothing, therefore there is no 'thing' that exists that is nothing - there is no such thing as nothing (by definition lol).

EvF

Yes, thing and nothing are mutually exclusive. I wasn't necessarily saying that there was nothing between the proton and electron. What little I know of quantum mechanics leads me to believe that the electron would be in a probability space, known as an orbital, in a waveform. They theoretically exist in all places simultaneously (Superposition, and there is no gap at all between proton and electron) and only occupy one xyz position when viewed by an observer.

We are the observer, there is one time slice we are speaking of, and at that slice, the xyz locations of the proton and electron are known (The waveform colapsed, there is a gap between the proton and electron, and Schroedinger's cat died). That is the nothing which "exists" as a placeholder. Otherwise when the waveform broke down material would collapse.

Rhizo

(9th July 2009 17:18)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:  What little I know of quantum mechanics leads me to believe that the electron would ... theoretically exist in all places simultaneously ... That is the nothing which "exists" as a placeholder.

Sounds more like, "That is the everything which 'exists' as a placeholder." :o)

(At any rate, this holds only under an epistemological Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which Einstein felt was problematic and sought to find a 'hidden variables' theory. One such theory, the ontological Bohm interpretation, demonstrates that some features of the Copenhagen interpretation, such as what you allude to, are unique to it but not essential to quantum mechanics; e.g., wave collapse, entanglement, the non-existence of particles while not being observed, etc. Under the Bohm interpretation, Schrödinger's cat does not suffer from self-contradiction while no one's looking.)

Arcanus,

But I seen it on "What the bleep do we know" That kid with them bouncin' basketballs. dur /nosepick

Yeah, that IS where I get my Quantum physics knowledge; that and, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav. It was a good read.

Rhizo

I'll just add my two cents on this (I haven't been to this place forever)

Yes. I find it pretty much sick when someone has the balls to say that such a such an event was the "will of God". Awhile back I had a family member pass away. Some of the overly religious members of my family said it was, "God's will". I truly wanted to spit on them.

(10th July 2009 05:38)Mandi Wrote:  Awhile back I had a family member pass away. Some of the overly religious members of my family said it was, "God's will". I truly wanted to spit on them.

I'm glad you didn't. Censuring free speech can lead to ugly results.

(10th July 2009 06:56)Arcanus Wrote:  

(10th July 2009 05:38)Mandi Wrote:  Awhile back I had a family member pass away. Some of the overly religious members of my family said it was, "God's will". I truly wanted to spit on them.

I'm glad you didn't. Censuring free speech can lead to ugly results.

Some would consider spitting on fools as free speech.