Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Is it possible for nothing to exist?

n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 10:48:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
To exist is to have something. Being, objective independent presence, ect whatever you define it as you are negating the meaning of "nothing".
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 5:03:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

No. Because that's how we defined it. Anything that would exist is something.

However, most of the time we use the word differently, usually when we say, "nothing" we mean "something" just not something we care to expand or focus on.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 8:06:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 5:03:47 AM, Heterodox wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

No. Because that's how we defined it. Anything that would exist is something.

However, most of the time we use the word differently, usually when we say, "nothing" we mean "something" just not something we care to expand or focus on.

Very well said, I agree. If nothing exists, how can we type on our computers? :)
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 9:51:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

So you believe that is possible that nothing exists?
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 10:06:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 9:51:32 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

So you believe that is possible that nothing exists?

That depends on how you do define nothing. Quantum fluctuations are like subnuclear particles of nothingness. They are nothing but are also particles (confusing eh?) if you count that as nothing then yes. If you don't then no.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 10:12:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 10:06:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:51:32 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

So you believe that is possible that nothing exists?

That depends on how you do define nothing. Quantum fluctuations are like subnuclear particles of nothingness. They are nothing but are also particles (confusing eh?) if you count that as nothing then yes. If you don't then no.
What is quantative fluctuation?
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 10:16:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 10:12:49 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 10:06:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:51:32 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

So you believe that is possible that nothing exists?

That depends on how you do define nothing. Quantum fluctuations are like subnuclear particles of nothingness. They are nothing but are also particles (confusing eh?) if you count that as nothing then yes. If you don't then no.
What is quantative fluctuation?

A quantum fluctuation consists of sub nuclear particles that are basically nothing. As I explained in my original post, they are timeless, have no gravity or matter, have no energy, have no mass, etc. To put it simply that's what they are. That is what physicists believe was there before the Big Bang. It is debatable on whether they are actually things or are nothing. Read my original post for a better explanation.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 10:41:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 10:16:54 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/25/2016 10:12:49 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 10:06:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:51:32 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

So you believe that is possible that nothing exists?

That depends on how you do define nothing. Quantum fluctuations are like subnuclear particles of nothingness. They are nothing but are also particles (confusing eh?) if you count that as nothing then yes. If you don't then no.
What is quantative fluctuation?

A quantum fluctuation consists of sub nuclear particles that are basically nothing. As I explained in my original post, they are timeless, have no gravity or matter, have no energy, have no mass, etc. To put it simply that's what they are. That is what physicists believe was there before the Big Bang. It is debatable on whether they are actually things or are nothing. Read my original post for a better explanation.

Thank you. I never knew that. Are you a lover of science as well?
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2016 11:01:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/25/2016 10:41:32 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 10:16:54 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/25/2016 10:12:49 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 10:06:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:51:32 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

So you believe that is possible that nothing exists?

That depends on how you do define nothing. Quantum fluctuations are like subnuclear particles of nothingness. They are nothing but are also particles (confusing eh?) if you count that as nothing then yes. If you don't then no.
What is quantative fluctuation?

A quantum fluctuation consists of sub nuclear particles that are basically nothing. As I explained in my original post, they are timeless, have no gravity or matter, have no energy, have no mass, etc. To put it simply that's what they are. That is what physicists believe was there before the Big Bang. It is debatable on whether they are actually things or are nothing. Read my original post for a better explanation.

Thank you. I never knew that. Are you a lover of science as well?

Science and philosophy.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 6:54:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

There is a grammatical issue where this claim can be interpreted two ways:

One would be like, "A thing called 'nothing' exists" which is a positive claim about an entity called 'nothing'.

The other would be, "No thing exists" which would be an ontological claim that the universe is not primarily made up of 'things'.

Most arguments against nihilism are predicated upon conflating the latter claim with the first, since the 'positive existence of a thing called nothing' is seemingly pretty easy to refute. However, their arguments rarely even touch that argument, since they usually just repeatedly say that "it's a contradiction", where there are many existentialist / postmodern philosophers (Sartre and Zizek come to mind) who advocate forms of that former position in the sense that our existence is somehow fundamentally based upon an ontological contradiction.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
snkcake666
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 4:55:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
No. Even space itself possesses physicality in itself, not simply the matter substance within- hence, its twists and bends. Now I have heard theories concerning subatomic particles essentially being "nothingness". However, to be able to detect such particles, they must physically interact with space in some form or fashion. Meaning, by their very nature, they cannot be defined as absolute nothingness, regardless of our ability to comprehend and measure them. And while they 'appear' to vanish, we have no evidence that they have not either dispersed or simply moved location, whether that be in simple space or dimension.

So to put it simply: No. By the very nature of 'nothingness', it cannot exist, as nothingness posseses absolutely no physical properties.
elementface
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 6:19:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

There is some semantic muddiness in this question.

If the question pertains to if a region of our universe can contain nothing, no. Spacetime as described by Einstein permeates all of space and will always be there, along with all the quantum force fields. How do I know? I can see stars that are physically behind the sun because of the way it bends space time. Try it some time (with a special telescope don't go looking at the sun directly!)
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:31:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The world doesn't need people who ask stupid questions but yet here you are.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:47:52 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Asking if it's possible for nothing to exist, is essentially the same as asking is if it's possible for something to not exist - and clearly it is. Enter your own tagline, but I'm going with Donald Trump's humility!
Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:53:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The foreground does not exist without a background.

Up does not exist without down.

A back does not exist without a front.

Yin does not exist without Yang.

Because if it did, how could you tell?
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 8:08:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/2/2016 4:55:50 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
No. Even space itself possesses physicality in itself, not simply the matter substance within- hence, its twists and bends. Now I have heard theories concerning subatomic particles essentially being "nothingness". However, to be able to detect such particles, they must physically interact with space in some form or fashion. Meaning, by their very nature, they cannot be defined as absolute nothingness, regardless of our ability to comprehend and measure them. And while they 'appear' to vanish, we have no evidence that they have not either dispersed or simply moved location, whether that be in simple space or dimension.

So to put it simply: No. By the very nature of 'nothingness', it cannot exist, as nothingness posseses absolutely no physical properties.

Thoughts on whether quantum fluctuations can be considered as nothing?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
snkcake666
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 10:07:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 8:08:36 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:55:50 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
No. Even space itself possesses physicality in itself, not simply the matter substance within- hence, its twists and bends. Now I have heard theories concerning subatomic particles essentially being "nothingness". However, to be able to detect such particles, they must physically interact with space in some form or fashion. Meaning, by their very nature, they cannot be defined as absolute nothingness, regardless of our ability to comprehend and measure them. And while they 'appear' to vanish, we have no evidence that they have not either dispersed or simply moved location, whether that be in simple space or dimension.

So to put it simply: No. By the very nature of 'nothingness', it cannot exist, as nothingness posseses absolutely no physical properties.

Thoughts on whether quantum fluctuations can be considered as nothing?

Well, in the ability to measure such fluctuations, they must exert a force within space, else they would be unable to be recognized. So they are most certainty something under those circumstances. People are quick to conclude their ability to be "nothing", simply because of their lifespan. However, it would be unwise to automatically assume that they necessarily vanish, without considering other possibilities such as a change in properties or a change in location, be it space or time.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 10:20:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 10:07:38 PM, snkcake666 wrote:
At 3/10/2016 8:08:36 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:55:50 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
No. Even space itself possesses physicality in itself, not simply the matter substance within- hence, its twists and bends. Now I have heard theories concerning subatomic particles essentially being "nothingness". However, to be able to detect such particles, they must physically interact with space in some form or fashion. Meaning, by their very nature, they cannot be defined as absolute nothingness, regardless of our ability to comprehend and measure them. And while they 'appear' to vanish, we have no evidence that they have not either dispersed or simply moved location, whether that be in simple space or dimension.

So to put it simply: No. By the very nature of 'nothingness', it cannot

exist, as nothingness posseses absolutely no physical properties.

Thoughts on whether quantum fluctuations can be considered as nothing?


Well, in the ability to measure such fluctuations, they must exert a force within space, else they would be unable to be recognized. So they are most certainty something under those circumstances. People are quick to conclude their ability to be "nothing", simply because of their lifespan. However, it would be unwise to automatically assume that they necessarily vanish, without considering other possibilities such as a change in properties or a change in location, be it space or time.

What sort of property and location changes are you referring to? This is probably obvious but this isn't my area of expertise and have very little knowledge on them other than what they are, their life span and how they fluctuate.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
snkcake666
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 10:47:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 10:20:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/10/2016 10:07:38 PM, snkcake666 wrote:
At 3/10/2016 8:08:36 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:55:50 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
No. Even space itself possesses physicality in itself, not simply the matter substance within- hence, its twists and bends. Now I have heard theories concerning subatomic particles essentially being "nothingness". However, to be able to detect such particles, they must physically interact with space in some form or fashion. Meaning, by their very nature, they cannot be defined as absolute nothingness, regardless of our ability to comprehend and measure them. And while they 'appear' to vanish, we have no evidence that they have not either dispersed or simply moved location, whether that be in simple space or dimension.

So to put it simply: No. By the very nature of 'nothingness', it cannot

exist, as nothingness posseses absolutely no physical properties.

Thoughts on whether quantum fluctuations can be considered as nothing?


Well, in the ability to measure such fluctuations, they must exert a force within space, else they would be unable to be recognized. So they are most certainty something under those circumstances. People are quick to conclude their ability to be "nothing", simply because of their lifespan. However, it would be unwise to automatically assume that they necessarily vanish, without considering other possibilities such as a change in properties or a change in location, be it space or time.

What sort of property and location changes are you referring to? This is probably obvious but this isn't my area of expertise and have very little knowledge on them other than what they are, their life span and how they fluctuate.

Well that is partially the point in human comprehension of science. In fact, no one blatantly understands the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations for that matter, even among the most refined scientists. You mentioned before that the fluctuations do not exert any forces, though the forces you listed were within our currently defined parameters of "forces". However, by our universal law, in accordance to space itself, in order for an object to be noted, it must portray a physical force or physicality of some sort (for example, length, mass, etc). While these subatomic particles might not necessarily be recognized through conventional forces and properties, this is not to say that there are none at all. Otherwise there would be no, logical manner in which they could be measured, and thus, they would not exist.

As for the lifespan, the most common argument concerning them being "nothing", is that they seemingly vanish after only a fraction of a moment, and we are unable to measure further results. But, as I mentioned, this alone is not proof of their existence ceasing, as different phenomenon might have occurred, such as a shift in dimension or a change in the physical state of the particles, into something which common instruments cannot necessarily detect. Or perhaps innumerable other confounding variables, which I myself have not accounted for.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 11:15:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 10:47:55 PM, snkcake666 wrote:
At 3/10/2016 10:20:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/10/2016 10:07:38 PM, snkcake666 wrote:
At 3/10/2016 8:08:36 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:55:50 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
No. Even space itself possesses physicality in itself, not simply the matter substance within- hence, its twists and bends. Now I have heard theories concerning subatomic particles essentially being "nothingness". However, to be able to detect such particles, they must physically interact with space in some form or fashion. Meaning, by their very nature, they cannot be defined as absolute nothingness, regardless of our ability to comprehend and measure them. And while they 'appear' to vanish, we have no evidence that they have not either dispersed or simply moved location, whether that be in simple space or dimension.

So to put it simply: No. By the very nature of 'nothingness', it cannot

exist, as nothingness posseses absolutely no physical properties.

Thoughts on whether quantum fluctuations can be considered as nothing?


Well, in the ability to measure such fluctuations, they must exert a force within space, else they would be unable to be recognized. So they are most certainty something under those circumstances. People are quick to conclude their ability to be "nothing", simply because of their lifespan. However, it would be unwise to automatically assume that they necessarily vanish, without considering other possibilities such as a change in properties or a change in location, be it space or time.

What sort of property and location changes are you referring to? This is probably obvious but this isn't my area of expertise and have very little knowledge on them other than what they are, their life span and how they fluctuate.


Well that is partially the point in human comprehension of science. In fact, no one blatantly understands the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations for that matter, even among the most refined scientists. You mentioned before that the fluctuations do not exert any forces, though the forces you listed were within our currently defined parameters of "forces". However, by our universal law, in accordance to space itself, in order for an object to be noted, it must portray a physical force or physicality of some sort (for example, length, mass, etc). While these subatomic particles might not necessarily be recognized through conventional forces and properties, this is not to say that there are none at all. Otherwise there would be no, logical manner in which they could be measured, and thus, they would not exist.

As for the lifespan, the most common argument concerning them being "nothing", is that they seemingly vanish after only a fraction of a moment, and we are unable to measure further results. But, as I mentioned, this alone is not proof of their existence ceasing, as different phenomenon might have occurred, such as a shift in dimension or a change in the physical state of the particles, into something which common instruments cannot necessarily detect. Or perhaps innumerable other confounding variables, which I myself have not accounted for.

I've heard scientists argue that they are as close to nothing as is possible. Apparently they are created and destroyed simultaneously making their lifespan virtually non existent.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:02:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

What quantum fluctuations are you talking about?

The ones I am aware of still have a descriptors that are relevant to energy, mass, time ect..
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 8:13:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:02:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

What quantum fluctuations are you talking about?

The ones I am aware of still have a descriptors that are relevant to energy, mass, time ect..

They are created and destroyed simultaneously. They have no measurable energy, time, matter, etc.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:12:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 2/25/2016 5:03:47 AM, Heterodox wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

No. Because that's how we defined it. Anything that would exist is something.

However, most of the time we use the word differently, usually when we say, "nothing" we mean "something" just not something we care to expand or focus on.

No we don't. We mean the absence of anything.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:15:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 10:47:55 PM, snkcake666 wrote:
At 3/10/2016 10:20:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/10/2016 10:07:38 PM, snkcake666 wrote:
At 3/10/2016 8:08:36 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/2/2016 4:55:50 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
No. Even space itself possesses physicality in itself, not simply the matter substance within- hence, its twists and bends. Now I have heard theories concerning subatomic particles essentially being "nothingness". However, to be able to detect such particles, they must physically interact with space in some form or fashion. Meaning, by their very nature, they cannot be defined as absolute nothingness, regardless of our ability to comprehend and measure them. And while they 'appear' to vanish, we have no evidence that they have not either dispersed or simply moved location, whether that be in simple space or dimension.

So to put it simply: No. By the very nature of 'nothingness', it cannot

exist, as nothingness posseses absolutely no physical properties.

Thoughts on whether quantum fluctuations can be considered as nothing?


Well, in the ability to measure such fluctuations, they must exert a force within space, else they would be unable to be recognized. So they are most certainty something under those circumstances. People are quick to conclude their ability to be "nothing", simply because of their lifespan. However, it would be unwise to automatically assume that they necessarily vanish, without considering other possibilities such as a change in properties or a change in location, be it space or time.

What sort of property and location changes are you referring to? This is probably obvious but this isn't my area of expertise and have very little knowledge on them other than what they are, their life span and how they fluctuate.


Well that is partially the point in human comprehension of science. In fact, no one blatantly understands the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations for that matter, even among the most refined scientists. You mentioned before that the fluctuations do not exert any forces, though the forces you listed were within our currently defined parameters of "forces". However, by our universal law, in accordance to space itself, in order for an object to be noted, it must portray a physical force or physicality of some sort (for example, length, mass, etc). While these subatomic particles might not necessarily be recognized through conventional forces and properties, this is not to say that there are none at all. Otherwise there would be no, logical manner in which they could be measured, and thus, they would not exist.

As for the lifespan, the most common argument concerning them being "nothing", is that they seemingly vanish after only a fraction of a moment, and we are unable to measure further results. But, as I mentioned, this alone is not proof of their existence ceasing, as different phenomenon might have occurred, such as a shift in dimension or a change in the physical state of the particles, into something which common instruments cannot necessarily detect. Or perhaps innumerable other confounding variables, which I myself have not accounted for.

And which you have no evidence for.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 11:32:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 8:13:18 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:02:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/25/2016 9:13:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:44:03 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
And how do you know?

In essence a quantum fluctuation is nothing. Since a quantum fluctuation is the result of the removal of time, matter, gravity, energy, mass, etc. it is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. It is impossible to get anything less than a quantum fluctuation. Even if you try to imagine nothing that still has quantum fluctuations in it. So I guess that either quantum fluctuation are nothing OR nothing doesn't exist.

What quantum fluctuations are you talking about?

The ones I am aware of still have a descriptors that are relevant to energy, mass, time ect..

They are created and destroyed simultaneously. They have no measurable energy, time, matter, etc.

That isn't true. Quantum fluctuations have quantifiable measurements associated with them. You seem to be equating net zero sum with them being nothing.