More nothing

Sorry. Couldn't resist. But I had to start yet another thread on the
concept of nothing, as it seems hard for most people around here to
fully grasp. I will start by saying that nothing is the total absence of
anything. No space, no events to measure, no energy, no physical
properties whatsoever. It's nothing.

And nothing is exactly what I believe is beyond the edges of our own
universe. No space to travel in and nothing to sustain your physical
being.

But the universe we know of is constantly expanding. How can that be if
there is no space to expand in beyond the borders of our universe? Two
possibilities: 1) Either this universe is part of a bigger one, possibly
with very different conditions, but still something for our universe to grow
in, or 2) our universe is growing out of it's own accord, creating new
energy, expanding matter and creating something where before there
was nothing.

Either way, the second option must be applicable at some level of
universal physicality. Because you have to ask yourself, if there is always
something (space) beyond the borders of every theoretical kind of
universe you can think of, where does it all end? It's just not a viable
option. The only truly believable version I can think of is that beyond the
borders are nothing. It eliminates the whole question of what is beyond
that then, because nothing is nothing and so it's nothing beyond the
nothing. So simple. The concept of eternal space is eliminated in a flash.
It's a real beauty that theory.

This all gives that there is nothing we can measure using a time index.
Hence, we don't have to ask ourselves what came before our universe.
Since there was nothing there to begin with, nothing came before our
universe and now that question is also perfectly eliminated. One
question remains: How can something arise from nothing? This is the
equivalent question of, if there's a God how was it created? Or, if God is
eternal, how can that be? Something eternal is as ridiculous a notion as
having nothing. Both are impossible to understand fully with our limited
intellects.

I would now suggest that it's even more likely that something came from
nothing, than that there's always been something there. Because the
latter suggests that there was no beginning and there'll be no end, and
that's just silly as it stands in violation of everything humanly
observable. It may be true, but it's highly unlikely from where I stand.
Having something start where there was absolutely nothing originally, is
extremely hard to understand. But if that's what happened, all those
other questions fade to a dim case of lunacy instead of the raving and
incoherent ranting witnessed in some churches to this date.

The only real question to answer is this: "How can something grow out of
nothing?" For now, I take it on faith that it has. Perhaps one day I'm
proven right or wrong, but that doesn't really "matter" much.

Your definition of nothing has no dimensions and therefore does not 'exist' and has no real meaning.
Your understanding of spacetime seems to imply that it has edges in every dimension and yet the dimensions continue beyond the edges to the 'nothingness' but that contradicts your assertion that there are no dimensions in the nothingness.
Space time is not expanding 'into' anything. The actual fabric of spacetime is expanding. So for example when a 1 cubic metre volume of space has expanded to 2 cubic metres, it hasn't expanded into its neigbouring space but rather got more cubic metres within it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your understanding of spacetime seems to imply that it has edges in every dimension and yet the dimensions continue beyond the edges to the 'nothingness' but that contradicts your assertion that there are no dimensions in the nothingness.

I think you misunderstand me.

If nothing exist beyond the borders of the universe, there is nothing to
explain or understand in terms of space time or dimensions. Imagine the
universe with a border and beyond that border, nothing. Not even a void
space. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Space time is not expanding 'into' anything. The actual fabric of spacetime is expanding. So for example when a 1 cubic metre volume of space has expanded to 2 cubic metres, it hasn't expanded into its neigbouring space but rather got more cubic metres within it.

See option 2.

How can something be beyond our borders, and yet be nothing. If it is beyond our borders, then it has a location, and so has something, and isn't nothing.

There has to be something. There is no such thing as nothing. Nothing is just a word created to describe the absence of things that we understand.

You are saying that there is a boundary at the edge of our universe which we cant cross, right? There has to be something there that prevents us from crossing. What happens if we're in a rocket and fly into this boundary? Will we crash into your "nothing"? Will we re-appear on the other side of the universe? What will happen? Just the fact that you say there are borders proves that there is something there.

So, in your view, the universe is a box?

Your view of nothingness is impossible. The word "nothing" and its meaning are just ideas. Just like the word "nowhere". You are always somewhere, no matter where you are. You are never "nowhere".

There is never nothing... there is always something. Even if us humans don't understand it, its still there.

Originally posted by stocken
Sorry. Couldn't resist. But I had to start yet another thread on the
concept of nothing, as it seems hard for most people around here to
fully grasp. I will start by saying that nothing is the total absence of
anything. No space, no events to measure, no energy, no physical
properties whatsoever. It's nothing.

And nothing is exactly what I believe ...[text shortened]... one day I'm
proven right or wrong, but that doesn't really "matter" much.

I would now suggest that it's even more likely that something came from
nothing, than that there's always been something there. Because the
latter suggests that there was no beginning and there'll be no end, and
that's just silly as it stands in violation of everything humanly
observable. It may be true, but it's highly unlikely from where I stand.
STOCKEN

I found what you said here a bit selective because something from nothing and nothing itself also "stands in violation of everything humanly observable." Both S from N and eternity require an uncaused event or entity. Once you have got that far then why stop ? Surely an uncaused entity would have nothing to prevent it being eternal? If you had the ability to exist out of nothing would you find it so much harder to be eternal?

why does god have to play a role in all this....? your statement is illogical for a number of reasons... for one, you've put restrictions on our universe, this is navie.... most scientists are now in agreement that the universe is eternal and goes on forever.... your second notion is also navie, the universe is not expanding into something else, it is getting larger within itself, planets are moving further away from each other as well as stars, the area of the universe is expanding... there cannot be a outside of the box because the universe is everlasting... if you insist on doing it from a god point of view, that is like saying what is beyond god..? god does not need to play a role in any of this, why do people insist of connecting the beginning of time with god...? science has explained the big bang theory which - though it has flaws - does a lot better than a religious one which has yet to explain where it all started

Originally posted by joneschr
How can something be beyond our borders, and yet be nothing. If it is beyond our borders, then it has a location, and so has something, and isn't nothing.

Semantics. Pfffft... The something beyond the borders of the universe is
nothing. How can that be so hard to comprehend? Nothing. No space and
no measurable anything. It's not something. It's nothing. Everything
cease to exist once it reaches the borders of our universe (I believe).
Think about it. It's not that hard to envision, but to try and imagine
something eternal? Now, there's a thought that can keep you awake at
night.

I'm not saying I'm right because it's easier to imagine nothing than to
imagine something eternal. I'm saying it makes more sense to think
that the cause of the universe is "natural" and not caused by some
eternal being that has always been there and always will be there. I'm
definitely sold on the idea that energy can begin from nothing, and that
the universe keeps expanding simply because new energy and matter is
constantly being generated. From where does the new energy come that
allows our universe to keep expanding? From nothing. How can energy
be created from nothing? That's the big question. We should forget
about gods and eternal thingies and concentrate on trying to understand
how energy can come from an absolute lack of energy and space, and
we'll be able to understand everything. EVERYTHING I TELL YA'!
MOAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAA!

Erm, or something like that. And just imagine the power supplies we can
build if we figure that one out. Woooo-hoooo!

Originally posted by knightmeister
I found what you said here a bit selective because something from nothing and nothing itself also "stands in violation of everything humanly observable."

Indeed, but unlike the concept of an eternal God everything we've observed
has an opening, a midgame and an end. It stands to logical reason that the
universe would also be built on that very mechanism. But for the universe to
have a beginning, you would have to keep asking yourself what caused the
universe, and then you would have to ask yourself what caused the cause of
the universe and so on and insanity slowly creeps in on you. A better
approach, not just from a psychological health point of view is to imagine the
universe coming from nothing. That's not crazy at all. 🙄 Ok, a little crazy,
but it makes sense from the opening-midgame-end perspective, unlike
this eternal God of yours.

Originally posted by stocken
Semantics. Pfffft... The something beyond the borders of the universe is
nothing. How can that be so hard to comprehend? Nothing. No space and
no measurable anything. It's not something. It's nothing. Everything
cease to exist once it reaches the borders of our universe (I believe).
Think about it. It's not that hard to envision, but to try and imagi imagine the power supplies we can
build if we figure that one out. Woooo-hoooo!

But its not just semantics. Your point isn't hard to comprehend at all, it just seems to be incorrect.

You've defined the area outside the border of the universe with certain properties in real world terms. You define it saying it lacks certain properties we can easily grasp (time, space, location, color, or what have you). But that's insufficient, because, in doing so, you are in fact defining the space. Can you prove that the area outside the border of the universe isn't in fact an infinite amount of cheese?

The area outside the universe can't be defined as nothing. It can only be left as undefined. Perhaps it can't even be defined.

See my point?

Originally posted by eatmybishop
.. most scientists are now in agreement that the universe is eternal and goes on forever..

Can you back up that statement?

If the universe is defined as the totality—or if one can speak of a totality at all—then that totality has no “edge,” no borders or boundaries, simply by virtue of being the totality.

“Beyond” such a totality, such a whole, one cannot properly speak.

The problem with that word “nothing”—although I don’t think stocken is committing this error, as I understand him—is that we want to talk about it as if it’s a “queer kind of something,” e.g., empty space, whereas space is a property (dimensionality) of the totality. Or we want to talk about the totality as if it is a kind of “thing-in-itself”—like a jar containing bugs—rather than just all of it.

If there are multiverses, then either they are in some kind of relationship or conceptual coherence with the natural universe in which we exist, in which case we can define a new, inclusive totality—or they are not, in which case we are again stymied, and have nothing to say...

Originally posted by vistesd
If the universe is defined as the totality—or if one can speak of a totality at all—then that totality has no “edge,” no borders or boundaries, simply by virtue of being the totality.

That depends on what you mean by boarders and boundaries. I personally see no problem with for example time being finite and having a beginning. However although you may see the beginning as a boundary that does not imply the existence of anything beyond said boundary.

The problem with that word “nothing”—although I don’t think stocken is committing this error, as I understand him—
I think he is committing that error.
There is a distinct difference between saying:
1. There is nothing outside the universe.
and
2. There is no such thing as outside the universe.
Put another way.
1. There is nothing before time began and therefore time came from nothing.
or
2. There is no such thing as before time began so to talk about where time came from is nonsensical and meaningless.

Stock, mate, the dearest of my pupils... you complicate yourself
to a large extent. As my alcoholic, colorful philosophy professor at
highschool told me once:

"The Nothing is a meat taco without meat inside and without tortilla
outside"

Now take this self-standing truth throughout the world and spread the
good news, my dear stocken.