Warning: session_name(): Cannot change session name when session is active in /home/chexed5/public_html/includes/sessions.php on line 5
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/chexed5/public_html/includes/sessions.php:5) in /home/chexed5/public_html/includes/sessions.php on line 6 Nothing is Everything: Thoughts
Nothing is Everything By: David Rader II on December 05, 2007 @ 6:31 AM
If all that there was, was nothing, that's all there would be... Right?
If that's all that there was, then it would be everything... Right?
That's a paradox.
It's only a paradox temporarily.
Because nothing can not be anything, when it becomes everything, it ceases to exist.
However, for everything to exist, it can not be everything except nothing, or it would not be everything.
So nothing is reborn again as a single part of everything.
Once again, we have a contradiction...
For nothing to truly exist, there must be no other thing, so the moment nothing is born into everything, everything else must cease to exist in order for nothing to exist.
From here, the cycle is repeated.
So where does our existence fit into this cycle of nothing becoming everything?
I believe we're somewhere in the middle. We're obviously not in nothing, or we wouldn't be here, but we're also not in Everything, or all things would be so dense that we wouldn't be able to move. I've drawn a diagram to help illustrate that.
Also, in accordance with the nature of the universe, we are likely moving with it on it's path, moving from one side of total nothingness to complete everything. I haven't yet had the time to think much about which way we're going (towards nothing or everything, both?), but I do hope to.
1. I understand that nothing can't technically "exist" in any tangible form, so it's been difficult describing it. So when I refer to "nothing" as something that exists, I refer to nothing existing as a possibility.
2. The diagram provided doesn't necessarily say I would describe the universe as cyclic or that it looks exactly like that. Using a circle was the quickest way to represent infinity in a way lines aren't overlapping (typical infinity symbol ∞), and also had the lines connecting.
#1An average person August 11, 2009 @ 3:19 AM
nothing is nonexistent and if nothing is the absence of anything then nothing doesn’t
exist. But if nothing does not exist, there is something that does not exist. But if the
absence of something is nonexistent than there can be nothing. So nothing exist, and that
is to the contrary if its meaning
#2David August 17, 2009 @ 8:53 PM
I think it's either an amazing paradoxical co-existence, or the most meaningless piece of knowledge ever acquired. Not sure which yet, but it's a good brain exerciser either way. Until I'm sure though, I'm going with the assumption that it's the amazing paradoxical co-existence... Doesn't seem far fetched considering other ironic aspects of life- such as how the destruction of a plant can lead to the creation of an animal...
#3Aidy Read January 28, 2010 @ 11:17 AM
I have thought on this topic before.. 'Nothing' is the paradox in itself though. Nothing can not be becuase nothing IS something, even if it is just a thought or word or absence of something/anything, it is. I have a problem with understanding what you mean by your first line though of your hypothesis: 'If all that there was, was nothing...' how can everything be nothing? Also, i get the whole point of going along with the universe on its path... but i don't get what you mean by moving from 'total nothingness to complete everything'. Take the Big Bang. The universe and all that we know is continually expanding (proven scientifically due to weakening gravatational forces and the fact that an explosion is outwards and not inwards, etc..). So in order for the universe to be expanding it must have 'space' to move into, otherwise it couldn't move. That means at the end of the universe there is 'something' to be expanding into. So the universe then is not everything. (and what is at the other end of the that, and that, and so forth...) So to bring me back to the point there is always something, so the universe is moving from 'something' to something else.. instead of from something to nothing. This then brings me back to my problem with how can everything = nothing ('If all that there was, was nothing...) Thank's for clarifying. This is one of my favourite discussions!
#4David January 28, 2010 @ 1:47 PM
"If all that there was, was nothing... how can everything be nothing?" - When nothing becomes or produces everything, it ceases to exist as nothing.
"So in order for the universe to be expanding it must have 'space' to move into, otherwise it couldn't move. That means at the end of the universe there is 'something' to be expanding into." - Or you could look at it this way- the universe expands because there's nothing there to stop it. In space this absence of force is seen as a vacuum (as if it has actual force). Although this "vacuum" can be used as force, I think it is likely the absence of force (in retrospect, the force or outward pressure of everything else) which makes everything else appear to be "pulled" apart by a vacuum.
"So the universe then is not everything......so the universe is moving from 'something' to something else" - I think the universe is an attempt at everything, something which may or may not be possible to reach, but it at least appears to be moving because it is in the process of creating everything or we are merely experiencing that process which is already completed in some form.
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion Aidy. This is also one of my favorite discussions.
#5Adam February 23, 2010 @ 1:04 PM
"Nothing is not; or rather, nothing is naught. Nothing, by definition, is the absence of anything. To claim that nothing is not, we must first claim that nothing is. Logically, we cannot define nothing because nothing holds no value; in saying this, however, we are permitting that nothing holds place for value. So what is nothing? Nothing cannot be defined without nothing becoming something. This is the paradox of nothing. We've defined nothing by claiming that a) nothing holds no value and b) nothing cannot be defined. If nothing were to exist (not that it could; follow me on this), nothing would hold no attributes... but when looking at this statement we come to realize that holding no attributes is indeed an attribute!"
This is my (more philosophical) dissection of the nothing paradox. Keep in mind that I'm only 15, turning 16 in July. :)