The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[sthitapragya]

That is really sad news. I learned a lot from Leo and he set me right on so many physics issues I had. I was in fact thinking of sending him a message asking him to come back to the forum. This is shocking.

That's how I felt. He sorted me out on a number of physics issues too and was always entertaining. He wasn't coming to the forum and hadn't replied to my last email to him. I emailed him again without luck. So then I checked the obituaties and found someone of his name, location and vintage who'd passed away in June so I assume it's him.

Yeah. I looked it up too. It is him, sadly.

[Greta]

That is really sad news. I learned a lot from Leo and he set me right on so many physics issues I had. I was in fact thinking of sending him a message asking him to come back to the forum. This is shocking.

That's how I felt. He sorted me out on a number of physics issues too and was always entertaining. He wasn't coming to the forum and hadn't replied to my last email to him. I emailed him again without luck. So then I checked the obituaties and found someone of his name, location and vintage who'd passed away in June so I assume it's him.

Yeah. I looked it up too. It is him, sadly.

It's a blow. At least he seemed to remain happily ornery until fairly close to the end.

Still, the bastard could have at least come back as a ghost long enough to tell us what it's like to die and solve all the arguments once and for all - selfishly too busy with eternity and whatnot to help out his old pals on the forum. I take it then that you would not have dared to make that earlier space comment had Leo been here

[sthitapragya]

I take it then that you would not have dared to make that earlier space comment had Leo been here

Oh, I would have because I still haven't understood what he meant and to me space still seems real. I suppose a few readings of his philosophy of the bloody obvious might change that.

[Greta]

Also, the idea of a lone singularity brings in relativity of scale. What is the difference between the hypothesised singularity - an infinitely small trillion degree spot of supercompressed plasma - and a single long wave photon in space at the projected heat death of the universe, further from its nearest decayed photon neighbour than the entire diameter of today's universe?

If what surrounds those stray slowly-decaying photons is true nothingness, then how can it be said that the photon's energy is small or large? That photon would be everything (unless you counted its sparse "neighbours" quintillions of light years away).

But what surrounds those stray photons is not true nothingness. There is real space between them which did not exist at the big bang. However, what surrounded all the matter and energy of the universe at the singularity would be true nothingness as there literally was nothing outside of it and no space time inside of it. At least that seems to be the theory.

Leo would have said that you've mistaken the map for the territory, following the mistaken notion of the 4D Minowski space, and I'd agree because space is just relative absence. The "spacetime" model is a mathematical one, describing how the mess of EM energy, gravity and time that lies between dense cosmic objects behaves. However, at the hypothetical heat death of the universe, after the last black hole has dissipated, where stray, highly degraded photons are all that remain, there is no heaving mess of EM energy affected by gravity and time that we call "space". Just the photons and, purportedly, dark energy (the latter may be a perspective error, though).

The condition of reality at the end of the universe is seemingly identical to the state before the big bang - except that, instead of a hypothetical singularity that physicists don't consider to have been real, we have stray degraded photons that are not only further from each other than the entire diameter of the known universe now, but the distance between them would be greater than the size of today's universe by an exponential factor.

It would seem the impossible distance between those photons would mean that each of those remaining degraded photons would each effectively be a universe unto itself.

[sthitapragya]

Leo would have said that you've mistaken the map for the territory, following the mistaken notion of the 4D Minowski space, and I'd agree because space is just relative absence. The "spacetime" model is a mathematical one, describing how the mess of EM energy, gravity and time that lies between dense cosmic objects behaves. However, at the hypothetical heat death of the universe, after the last black hole has dissipated, where stray, highly degraded photons are all that remain, there is no heaving mess of EM energy affected by gravity and time that we call "space". Just the photons and, purportedly, dark energy (the latter may be a perspective error, though).

The condition of reality at the end of the universe is seemingly identical to the state before the big bang - except that, instead of a hypothetical singularity that physicists don't consider to have been real, we have stray degraded photons that are not only further from each other than the entire diameter of the known universe now, but the distance between them would be greater than the size of today's universe by an exponential factor.

It would seem the impossible distance between those photons would mean that each of those remaining degraded photons would each effectively be a universe unto itself.

I assume that space is the part where virtual particles spontaneously pop into existence and disappear. I go by the assumption that when they say expanding space, whatever is outside it does not have particles spontaneously popping into existence and disappearing. So nothingness to me would be that kind of space where literally nothing happens. There are no laws of science. There are no popping particles nor is there any possibility of it happening. This is pure layman science. So If you can shed some light, please do so.

[Greta]

I assume that space is the part where virtual particles spontaneously pop into existence and disappear. I go by the assumption that when they say expanding space, whatever is outside it does not have particles spontaneously popping into existence and disappearing. So nothingness to me would be that kind of space where literally nothing happens. There are no laws of science. There are no popping particles nor is there any possibility of it happening. This is pure layman science. So If you can shed some light, please do so.

Leo would have come in handy here. I'm a physics slouch too.

You'd be referring the Lawrence Krauss's "virtual particles", described in his book about how the universe came from nothingness - but the nothingness was actually something. He says the "nothingness" of space is seething with virtual particles popping in and out of existence. According to Lawrence K's hypothesis, one of those virtual particles crossed some threshold where it didn't pop out of existence but instead kept inflating. By that model, I think the virtual particles - which are also only a mathematical construct - would be present at all times, both before the BB and at the heat death of the universe.

If you wish to be confused and wonder if you ever want to think about "virtual particles" again, may I recommend this link :) https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... -are-they/

[uwot]

Sorry to hear about Leo, he was good to argue with. We disagreed almost completely, but I certainly respected him, and from what he said, I think that was mutual. Where he and I differed is that my view is much closer to those expressed by Proessor Matt Strassler in the link. There is no denying that 'fields' exist, in the sense that they are fields of influence. The behaviour of matter is demonstrable; 'particles' are routinely directed by the influence of electromagnetic fields at CERN, for example, and if you doubt the existence of gravitational fields, try dropping something. For Leo, as I understood him, that's all a field is, and for the purposes of physics, that's all they have to be. My position is that the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the appearance that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. I've gone into detail on this forum several times, but if you are interested, there are some relevent pages on my blog: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... e-few.html or here: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/sear ... results=17

[sthitapragya]

Thank you both, Uwot and Greta. I will go through the links.

[Dalek Prime]

Where has Leo gone to, anyway?

[sthitapragya]

Where has Leo gone to, anyway?

Leo passed away on the 14th of June. Greta told me about it and I looked it up on an Australian obit.

[ken]

I take it then that you would not have dared to make that earlier space comment had Leo been here

Oh, I would have because I still haven't understood what he meant and to me space still seems real. I suppose a few readings of his philosophy of the bloody obvious might change that.

Leo is right about space not being real, if that was the words he used. Actually I have not yet read any of his writings in this forum yet but I was going to ask him how was he going to explain a 3 dimensional human body existing if there was no 3 dimensional space? If, and when, he had figured that out, then he would have been able to prove what he was saying. The trouble leo had explaining this was he was looking at it only from the 3 dimensional body perspective and also trying to explain it from that perspective. I was hoping to catch up with him here but sadly never got a chance to.

By some of the comments, Obvious/ly leo will be missed here.

[Greta]

I take it then that you would not have dared to make that earlier space comment had Leo been here

Oh, I would have because I still haven't understood what he meant and to me space still seems real. I suppose a few readings of his philosophy of the bloody obvious might change that.

Leo is right about space not being real, if that was the words he used. Actually I have not yet read any of his writings in this forum yet but I was going to ask him how was he going to explain a 3 dimensional human body existing if there was no 3 dimensional space? If, and when, he had figured that out, then he would have been able to prove what he was saying. The trouble leo had explaining this was he was looking at it only from the 3 dimensional body perspective and also trying to explain it from that perspective. I was hoping to catch up with him here but sadly never got a chance to.

By some of the comments, Obvious/ly leo will be missed here.

Leo was a tease IMO. His ideas were based on the conditions of the universe in its first few Planck times of existence. He had no problem agreeing that subsequent emergent phenomena exists, but he was convinced that before matter emerged there was only gravity, time and information.

Here's his manifesto, a mix of typical Leo's best and worst qualities, as it should: https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

[ken]

Not really. Again, we are conditioned by our very existence to fear that which isn't existence, or doesn't lead to its continuation. Fear always trumps reason in the end. Though, if we are prepared without fear, or in pain, it's a welcome relief.

Well, it's surely better than the process of dying. Still, oblivion seems the less valuable thing, much easier to attain. Maybe ...

And thank you again for having an open mind, that you'd actually take the time, look, and consider the subject, instead of just dismissing it as counterintuitive to existence. It's refreshing. All I ever ask of anyone is to recognize the reasoning behind it, even if they can't get past the strangness of arguing for nonexistence.

Why not. Just another POV.

You might also enjoy an interesting perspective in response to a thread on sleep on another philosophy forum I chat on, where he makes a case for non-consciousness:

During dreamless sleep, there is no sense of self. All cognitive functions and sensory organs are nullified. We become blank slates with no identities, memories, or responsibilities. During this state, we recess from all daily cares and become one with the universe. We never directly experience this state - we are only able to reflect upon it during waking life. Consciousness is a form of fracture, and dreamless sleep is a form of wholeness. What dreamless sleep tells us about "the greater scheme of things" is that there are no permanent divisions between persons, or between persons and their environments. Any and all divisions (i.e. political, social, etc) are self-imposed. The very fact of dreamless sleep should challenge us to re-think our relationships to others and the world.

Dreamless sleep also has implications for birth and death. Dreamless sleep, the period before birth, and the period after death are all alike insofar as they are blank slates that cannot be experienced.

I personally find that separateness has its merits.

Propofol during surgery is the only thing that causes dreamless sleep, that I know of.

What about just being in a "deep" sleep?
Or what about an absolutely unthinking, unconsciousness state of sleep?
These would cause dreamless sleep also, would they not?

I suspect death causes it also. But that part I do not know. None of us does. Not yet. But we all will someday.

There is One that does know.

Obviously after a human body dies and the brain stops functioning, then the person within that body would be in dreamless sleep.

What else COULD possibly happen?

[Dalek Prime]

Where has Leo gone to, anyway?

Leo passed away on the 14th of June. Greta told me about it and I looked it up on an Australian obit.

Aw no.... Ah Jesus...

[Dalek Prime]

Oh, I would have because I still haven't understood what he meant and to me space still seems real. I suppose a few readings of his philosophy of the bloody obvious might change that.

Leo is right about space not being real, if that was the words he used. Actually I have not yet read any of his writings in this forum yet but I was going to ask him how was he going to explain a 3 dimensional human body existing if there was no 3 dimensional space? If, and when, he had figured that out, then he would have been able to prove what he was saying. The trouble leo had explaining this was he was looking at it only from the 3 dimensional body perspective and also trying to explain it from that perspective. I was hoping to catch up with him here but sadly never got a chance to.

By some of the comments, Obvious/ly leo will be missed here.

Leo was a tease IMO. His ideas were based on the conditions of the universe in its first few Planck times of existence. He had no problem agreeing that subsequent emergent phenomena exists, but he was convinced that before matter emerged there was only gravity, time and information.

Here's his manifesto, a mix of typical Leo's best and worst qualities, as it should: https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

Funny how I never started reading his blog til now. Thanks for posting it Greta.