This thread is about nothing.

[Grandy]

You guys fail to see the point.

"Nothing" exists, therefore it's a thing.

Now, "Flagbragerciouslat" doesn't exist, therefore its not a thing, which is to say, it was, before I pronounced it's name, now it exists as a name.

The very idea of something not existing is silly. If you think about it it exists, even if only in your mind, as such, there's no such a thing as true "nothing."

[Ben]

the universe is thought to not be infinite.
I prefer the donut theory. Look it up.

[Grandy]

Donut theory.... sounds delicious.

[Dragonium]

"Nothing" exists, therefore it's a thing.

So nothing =/= nothing? You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. A vacuum is not nothing, since true nothing is a purely theoretical thing.

Vaguely comprehending an idea without giving it substance does not make it real. You could theorise "a new colour which previously did not exist", but that is impossible because we have already established all the colours in the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye. Of course it's a plausible idea, but put into the context of what we'd be able to see, it is impossible.

If something became real and true because someone could imagine it, God and Allah and Zeus and Oden would be having fights in outer space while riding on flying pink unicorns. It doesn't work that way.

[Grandy]

Exactly Nothing =/= Nothing, nothing = the idea of nothing, but nothing doesnt exists, as in Nothing exists as a thing, so it's really not nothing.

[Dragonium]

Exactly Nothing =/= Nothing, nothing = the idea of nothing, but nothing doesnt exists, as in Nothing exists as a thing, so it's really not nothing.

"Nothing" does not exist as a thing. A vacuum is the absence of matter, but scientifically that is not nothing. True nothing is purely theoretical.

[Grandy]

True nothing is purely theoretical.

Exactly. The nothing we have is not nothing, it's a thing called nothing.

[Dragonium]

Exactly. The nothing we have is not nothing, it's a thing called nothing.

I don't even know what your argument is any more.

[Grandy]

Me neither.

[Archem]

Hay gays, sum this thread up for me in two paragraphs (not bullshit ones, either) or more. Two pages worth of spam is tl;dr.

[Drace]

Hay gays, sum this thread up for me in two paragraphs (not bullshit ones, either) or more. Two pages worth of spam is tl;dr.

For so far I know:

Grandy states that when you have nothing, you automaticly make it something.

The rest, I didn't follow.

[Ben]

YOU ARE ALL CONFUSING SCIENCE WITH PHILOSOPHY.

[Drace]

Turn off auto-pilot, kthxbai.

[SaiKar]

First off, you can't have a jar filled with "a vacuum." A vacuum is a property, like the color blue. You can have a jar filled with blue paint, but not just blueness. What you're really trying to say is a jar filled with literally nothing - no matter.

Anyway, this topic reminds me of an old SMAC qutoe (great 90s sci fi computer game) about when they discover space travel for the first time. It's from one of the religious leaders, hence the religious focus, but carries the same idea:

And so we return again to the holy void. Some say this is simply our destiny, but I would have you remember always that the void EXISTS, just as surely as you or I. Is nothingness any less a miracle than substance?

In any event, it's not even true. There's a little bit of hydrogen between the stars, and the temperature out there in space is a smidge above absolute zero because of it. That Large Hadron Collider they're building actually has less matter in it than deep space. That's why the thing is so freaking expensive, complicated, and is taking so long too prepare - because they're getting a state of existance in there that's even crazier than space which would, assuming there are no intelligence civilizations out there to build something similar, make it the most extreme environment in the entire universe. It's the coolest thing ever build that nobody really cares about.

So what you're talking about with pure nothingness doesn't exist, because of the way matter decays, never can exist. Atoms of whatever you try to contain pure nothingness in would eventually "flake off" into the nothing-space.

ALL THAT SAID, nothingness is not something because we gave it a name. Nothingness is nothing because that's what we decide nothing is. It's like how, if you have 0 brothers, you don't have "some amount" of brothers because 0 is a number. No matter how you splice up the language, nothing is still nothing.

[Dragonium]

Yeah, I think that pretty much says it all.