What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Karis]

The problem here, again, is that people are talking about nothing as though it's something.

 

Which it is not - it's really only a concept, which the human mind cannot fathom.

 

I don't even know why we're still talking about nothing, as the nothing discussed here isn't relevant to the universe and is certainly not relevant to the Big Bang.

 

Nothing can exist mathematically and conceptually (just about), but I very much doubt it could physically exist (or not) in a sense that our minds could comprehend.

[Grahame]

The problem here, again, is that people are talking about nothing as though it's something.

 

Which it is not - it's really only a concept, which the human mind cannot fathom.

 

I don't even know why we're still talking about nothing, as the nothing discussed here isn't relevant to the universe and is certainly not relevant to the Big Bang.

 

Nothing can exist mathematically and conceptually (just about), but I very much doubt it could physically exist (or not) in a sense that our minds could comprehend.

 

A CRT tube has a vacuum inside it, i.e. nothing, but when it implodes the effects can be as devastating as a small explosion, so although a vacuum is nothing, it has power/energy?

[onewheeldave]

A hole in the ground never was 'nothing'.

 

For one thing it contains air.

 

For another, it's defined by the ground around it.

 

The 'absolute nothingness' we're talking about in this thread is a total absense of anything- it's not defined by what surrounds it, because there's nothing surrounding it.

 

It doesn't exist in a 'place' and, unlike the vacuum, it has no structure.

 

It's an absence of anything.

 

It may be that you can't imagine it/visualise it- that doesn't matter, simply class it with all the other things you can't imagine, like pi, infinity, the size of the universe etc: an inability to imagine something is not grounds for saying it doesn't exist.

[Karis]

Thanks Dave, you saved me loads of typing with your frankly excellent summary

[Grahame]

A hole in the ground never was 'nothing'.

 

For one thing it contains air.

 

For another, it's defined by the ground around it.

 

The 'absolute nothingness' we're talking about in this thread is a total absense of anything- it's not defined by what surrounds it, because there's nothing surrounding it.

 

It doesn't exist in a 'place' and, unlike the vacuum, it has no structure.

 

It's an absence of anything.

 

It may be that you can't imagine it/visualise it- that doesn't matter, simply class it with all the other things you can't imagine, like pi, infinity, the size of the universe etc: an inability to imagine something is not grounds for saying it doesn't exist.

 

I can accept those things exist even though I might have difficulty visualising them, but to say 'nothing' exists has to be a contradiction in terms?

[Lockjaw]

A CRT tube has a vacuum inside it, i.e. nothing, but when it implodes the effects can be as devastating as a small explosion, so although a vacuum is nothing, it has power/energy?

 

No. The vacuum doesn't cause the "explosion". The air outside does.

 

Also, the "nothing" inside the tube is nothing in terms of matter but, since it "occupies" a space, is not the same nothing as that which preceded the big bang.

 

HTH

[Grahame]

No. The vacuum doesn't cause the "explosion". The air outside does.

 

Also, the "nothing" inside the tube is nothing in terms of matter but, since it "occupies" a space, is not the same nothing as that which preceded the big bang.

 

HTH

 

I know it is the effect of air rushing in to fill an empty space that causes the effect of an explosion which is actually an implosion.

 

I am saying that 'nothing' has an effect on things around it, if only by its absence. Furthermore I am not sure if something that has an effect on other bodies around it can be described accurately as 'nothing' surely it is a force in its own right by virtue of its very existence?

[onewheeldave]

I know it is the effect of air rushing in to fill an empty space that causes the effect of an explosion which is actually an implosion.

 

I am saying that 'nothing' has an effect on things around it, if only by its absence. Furthermore I am not sure if something that has an effect on other bodies around it can be described accurately as 'nothing' surely it is a force in its own right by virtue of its very existence?

 

The 'nothing' in the tube is not absolute nothingness- it's a 'vacuum'- it has structure and energy: check out previous posts in this thread which go into great detail about the difference between a vacuum and nothingness.

 

Suffice it to say, that every example you may bring up about instances of 'nothing' in our world, whether holes in the ground, vaccums in tubes or interstellar space, are actually examples of 'somethings'- none of them are absolute nothingness (which simply cannot exist in our universe, due to the fact that our universe exists in a space-time field, which, again, is 'something).

[onewheeldave]

I know it is the effect of air rushing in to fill an empty space that causes the effect of an explosion which is actually an implosion.

 

I am saying that 'nothing' has an effect on things around it, if only by its absence. Furthermore I am not sure if something that has an effect on other bodies around it can be described accurately as 'nothing' surely it is a force in its own right by virtue of its very existence?

 

Absolute nothingness i.e. a total absense of anything, can clearly never have an effect on bodies around it, as, if it's absolute nothingness, there can be no bodies around it.

 

If there's something there, then clearly, what you're thinking about, is not nothingness.

[sheffgrow]

God existed as he is the alpha and the omega