Nothingness

[Harris]

I'm a bit late on this thread as I don't post here very often. But I'll try to give you a picture of where physics stands on this issue.

You are right on the target and catch my idea exactly. For me space is not NOTHINGNESS. It has properties and if something has properties it is counted as an existing object. Have look on few quotes below.


Kant, Science, and Human Nature
By Robert Hanna

Chapter 3
Manifest Realism I: A Critique of Scientific Essentialism
Page 141
(1) Some knowable things (whether individual material entities, natural kinds, events, processes, or forces) exist in objectively real physical space and not merely in consciousness.

The Philosophy of Vacuum
Edited by:
Simon Saunders and Harvey R. Brown

Page 1 Introduction by Simon Saunders
As for space, Aristotle used the word topos, ‘place’ or ‘container’ – a continuous, finite receptacle which persists through change and which is ‘separable’ from matter.


Page 13 On the Ether by Albert Einstein
Instead of speaking of an ether, one could equally well speak of physical qualities of space.


Page 23 The Mass of the Classical Vacuum
By: R. Penrose
Think now of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field. As Maxwell himself clearly pointed out (1865, 1873), this fieldcarriesenergy. Thus, by E=MC2, the field must also have mass. Thus, Maxwell’s field is also matter! ----- If there are many continuous media present (e.g. quantum field descriptions of particles), then we have an energy density, and hence a corresponding tensor, for each one.


Page 221
Descartes, for example, reminded us that in common speech ‘the term empty usually means, not a place where there is no object at all but simply a place where there is no object such we think there outhgt to be’. He gives the example of a water jug which is called empty if it contains no water; but, of course, it doescontain air. He goes on to remind us ‘that a space containing nothing sensible is ‘empty’ even if it is full of created and self-subsistent matter’. Maxwell (1954) sums up this positoin rather aptly: ‘the vacuum is that which is left in a vessel after we have removed everything which we can remove from it’ (see smart 1964).


Kant gives the example of a body. If we remove the colour, hardness, softness, weight, impenetrability and so on, there still, according to Kant, remains the space which the body ‘now entirely vanished’ occupied. It is this space which is a priori; we cannot be rid of it. In this sense, every experience will ‘force concepts of permanence upon us’.


All above quotes, (I can give many others); I gave to support my idea that Space-Vacuum is not “Nothingness” rather it is “Emptyness” that has attributes and these attributes we use for its identification.
There another riddle hidden in origin of universe as well:

1. Does Big Bang happened in space or
2. Space originated inside Big Bang[/quote]

Anyway, right now this is not the topic of my question.

So, after proving that space is not “NOTHINGNESS” now the question remains unanswered, what exactly is nothingness?

NOTHINGNESS is an identity just like SPACE is an identity. However, to what this NOTHINGNESS is pointing. If this NOTHINGNESS has existence, at least in form of word/language, it should points to something or some idea. Would you like to put some light over NOTHINGNESS. This is an interesting point that I am keen to learn from you. You are an atheist who doesn’t believe in the existence of God. In your opinion, what can be the substitution of God? If there is no God then there should be NOTHINGNESS. So what do you think of this NOTHINGNESS?