nothing does not exist

'

Theoretically, sure.

but, as you get down to the basic molecule, you approach one. one molecule

when you halve THAT, you get the basic elements it's made up of, which aren't the object any more. Cut those in half, you get a basic form of subatomic particles. Cut those in half, and you get quarks, cut that in half, you get ... I believe they're working on this type of concept, but the thing is, at certain stages, that object does not exist anymore, but something else its particles become. (that's yoda talkin')

 

Look around you. At the room, computer yourself. If you took all the protons and neutrons and electrons and squished them all together, that is, took all the space between them out, you would have content that is smaller than a grain of sand. MUCH MUCH smaller.

So what is all that space? Emptiness? Nothingness? What is it? What does it count as?

 

Atmosphere?

 

Ahahaha...

You *are* kidding, right?

Edit: That sounds kind of mean ~ Not intentionally; I really can't tell whether you're serious or not, though.

 

if you took the space between everything away, and squished it together into that compressed ball of matter smaller than a grain of sand, you would not have everything around you smaller and compressed. you would have a very dense nothing. so you could look at it as, the space inbetween the somethings is what makes them a something. so they themselves are nothing, and the nothing is "something". but seeing as it is still nothingness by itself, there really is nothing REAL. just two different kinds of nothing that, when combined, create the ILLUSION of "something".




and bill nye most certainly is trippy and awesome and amazing on the subject of trippy cool educational videos... has anyone seen the Quack! videos for SAT words and Spanish? those are fucking cool.

 

uh, not in any mental state to look through all these and comprehend them but here we have it.

nothing does not exist. everything that exists, exists, but things that dont exist dont. so nothing, which is simply absence of existence could not exist.

remmber its all the same everything/nothing, just different names. nothing couldnt exist without everything but there would be no everything without nothing

 

what about the nothing that resides behind the eyes???? the observers existence is only brought about by his perception of his existence....nothing does exist, though its a state of mind. difficult to describe really.

 

NICE

 

Ehehehehe LOL that totally cracked me up.

 

well its only observation that makes anything. the observer implies the observed.

if there was no observer, there would by definition be nothing to observe. if a beam of light reflected off a tree, for example, never came back into any eye and was never interpreted by any brain, the tree would be invisible.

i doubt the relevance of that post

 

You guys should all watch Canticles to the Cosmos with Brian Swimme if you enjoy wrapping your mind around concepts/ideas like these.

 

somthing cant exist out of nothing. therefore we do not exist.

 

but, as you get down to the basic molecule, you approach one. one molecule

when you halve THAT, you get the basic elements it's made up of, which aren't the object any more. Cut those in half, you get a basic form of subatomic particles. Cut those in half, and you get quarks, cut that in half, you get ...

Light.

 

sorry I meant to quote Whispering Woods, fucked that shit up tho!

 

good points, however really whats been proven so far is that you can not destroy matter. not that there is no such thing as nothing but that we can not create nothing. matter can not be destroyed or created, you cant make something out of nothing and likewise cant turn something into nothing, however if there really is no nothing then that would explain why you can't do that. if at the begining of existence there was everything wraping itself around and weaving itself through nothing than that nothing would still be there, wouldn't it?

 

The concept of zero was invented quite a while back. But in real world terms of what people can relate to is: I have no money. If you send me a dollar then I could have something to divide in half.

Nothing does exist. I can't see it but I know its not there.

 

you're basing your concept of nothing on something. if that something did not exist, then you would have nothing

 

would this point be able to be proved ever? i mean unless its proved that there is not nothing you can say there is and you cant prove it does not exist because it could just be undiscoverd. and you cant prove that it does exist because as soon as you get something in that space where nothing was to check to see if anything is there then something is, if nothing else then the device that you have put there yourself.

 

your error involves your attempt to turn something into nothing. something cant turn into nothing. nothing was always nothing, it was not achieved by cutting a piece of paper into many pieces. this merely achieves the movement of somethings away from eachother.