This thread is about nothing.

[Grandy]

 What is nothing? Some say that over 99% of the univers is composed of nothing, like the vacuum in the space, but isn't vacuum by itself something? If, as an example, we make a ball of vacuum inside an air-filled room, wouldn't it be better to say it's a ball of something made out of nothing inside something which is so common it could be classified as nothing?

 One could say that the very fact that something fails to be something makes it different of the rest, thus making it something instead of making it nothing.

 Discuss.


 Coming next: This thread is about everything. Stay tuned.

[Dragonium]

a ball of vacuum inside an air-filled room

I don't think that's how Physics works.

[drenrin2120]

You're thinking too hard. A vacuum is just a term used to describe nothing; a synonym. So if the universe is 99% nothing, that means all the planets, stars, dust, comets and moons only take up 1% of the available space in the universe.

EDIT: I think I get what he's saying... but still... just because you have a vacuum chamber inside a chamber of air doesn't mean because the vacuum is surrounded by something makes it something...

[X_marks_the_ed]

I don't think that's how Physics works.

Then you're not trying hard enough.

[Apex]

I think that space is just one giant hard drive, and eventually we will need to update it, which will take up more space then this OS, and when that day comes, each sun will gain additional features, and reality as we know it, will increase in GUI, making the standard of "realisticness" tenfold. Also, as the ages go on, our cosmic drive will eventually become flooded with 900JLKB's of Porn. When that day comes, if the universe is running any form of Windows, we shall all be fucked, due to the influx of interstellar viruses.

[Grandy]

I don't think that's how Physics works.

Why not? I mean, if all matter can curl up in balls in the middle of space, why can't space curl up in balls in middle of matter?

[Dragonium]

Why not? I mean, if all matter can curl up in balls in the middle of space, why can't space curl up in balls in middle of matter?

Because a vacuum can only be created in the absence of liquid or gaseous matter surrounding it. A "ball of vacuum" would even itself out with the surrounding air and cease to be. The closest thing to it would be a vacuum jar, which isn't the same thing.

[Grandy]

Why not? Matter is matter, I used gas as an example of matter. If you will, imagine we turn on a vacuum machine for a split second, momentanially there'll be a ball of vacuum in the air before the air itself covers it-

 Okay I'm getting the greatest deja-vú here, I just know I had this kind of discussion against someone in charas, with the exact same argument. Drace, was it you?

[Dragonium]

You can't just instantly make a vacuum, it's a gradual process which involves sucking the air out of whatever airtight container it's being made in - be it a jar or a room. If you turn on your vacuum machine, air is sucked in, and the level of air in the environment equalises to prevent pressure differences. It works similar to osmosis with water. Air cannot support a vacuum within itself because of this. Only a solid (or possibly liquid) container can do that.

Turn on your vacuum machine, and the air pressure in the room or jar gradually drops, until the room or jar is empty of air. There is no "ball of vacuum".

[Grandy]

Well, suppose a ball of vacuum inside of something solid then, sheesh. Point is it's the lack of something, and since it's the lack of something and we need to name it "The lack of something", it automatically becomes a thing.

[Drace]

You can't just instantly make a vacuum, it's a gradual process which involves sucking the air out of whatever airtight container it's being made in - be it a jar or a room. If you turn on your vacuum machine, air is sucked in, and the level of air in the environment equalises to prevent pressure differences. It works similar to osmosis with water. Air cannot support a vacuum within itself because of this. Only a solid (or possibly liquid) container can do that.

Turn on your vacuum machine, and the air pressure in the room or jar gradually drops, until the room or jar is empty of air. There is no "ball of vacuum".

So a jar with no air pressure etc = a jar of nothing. Thus, Grandy wins.

[Dragonium]

Well, suppose a ball of vacuum inside of something solid then, sheesh. Point is it's the lack of something, and since it's the lack of something and we need to name it "The lack of something", it automatically becomes a thing.

It's a jar with a vacuum in it. We're not even considering that there are different sizes of vacuum, and "vacuum" simply means it's less than atmospheric pressure. In its simplest form, a vacuum is the absence of particles. Calling it a thing implies that it is a species of matter, which it isn't. Taking vacuum as nothing is a lot simpler.

Consider how many atoms are in your body, or any material object. Then consider that the space between the nucleus of an atom and the electrons orbiting it is a relatively large distance. Is it important that all objects are mostly empty space? No, because only the actual particles are considered.

So a jar with no air pressure etc = a jar of nothing. Thus, Grandy wins.

How? His argument is that a vacuum can be considered "something", if you think about it that way, therefore "nothing" cannot exist.

[WarxePB]

I love how you guys are getting so hot and bothered about something that not only doesn't really matter, but plays on one of the many flaws of the English language.

[Ben]

no, a jar filled with nothing is a jar that happens to have no matter inside of it.

99% of the universe is not so much nothing, as it is devoid of matter. Which is something, in that there is nothing occupying that space.

[X_marks_the_ed]

Thing; noun
1.  An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. +1 Grandy, Vacuums themselves exist.
2. a. The real or concrete substance of an entity. +1 Dragonium
2. b. An entity existing in space and time. +1 Dragonium
2. c. An inanimate object. +1 Grandy
3. Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent. +1 Grandy
4. A creature: the poor little thing. Irrelevant
5. An individual object: There wasn't a thing in sight. +1 Dragonium
6. a. Law That which can be possessed or owned. Often used in the plural: things personal; things real. Irrelevant
6. b. things Possessions; belongings: packed her things and left. Irrelevant
6. c. An article of clothing: Put on your things and let's go. Irrelevant
7. things The equipment needed for an activity or a special purpose: Where are my cleaning things? +1 Dragonium
8. An object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically: What is this thing for? Tie
9. a. An act, deed, or work: promised to do great things. Irrelevant
9. b. The result of work or activity: is always building things. +1 Grandy, the result of a lack of matter.
10. A thought, a notion, or an utterance: What a rotten thing to say! +1 Grandy
11. A piece of information: wouldn't tell me a thing about the project. +1 Grandy
12. A means to an end: just the thing to increase sales. Irrelevant
13. An end or objective: In blackjack, the thing is to get nearest to 21 without going over. Irrelevant
14. A matter of concern: many things on my mind. Irrelevant
15. A turn of events; a circumstance: The accident was a terrible thing. Irrelevant
16. a. things The general state of affairs; conditions: "Beneath the smooth surface of things, something was wrong" Tom Wicker Irrelevant
16. b. A particular state of affairs; a situation: Let's deal with this thing promptly. Irrelevant
17. Informal A persistent illogical feeling, as a desire or an aversion; an obsession: has a thing about seafood. Irrelevant
18. Informal The latest fad or fashion; the rage: Drag racing was the thing then. Irrelevant
19. Slang An activity uniquely suitable and satisfying to one: Let him do his own thing. Irrelevant

Grandy- 6
Dragonium- 4

This is how I solve questions like this.