[PmbPhy]

1.  Is infinity a number?

No. It's not a number. It's a concept/idea.

2.  Is eternity a length of time?

No. Just like eternity it's a concept. Think of it as infinite amount of time.

3.  Is it possible to define Cantor’s “absolute infinity”?

I don't know what that is so I can't say.

4.  If there had ever been (absolutely) nothing, could there be something now?   

Yes.

5.  Could there be change without time?

No, because can is defined as change.

[jeffreyH]

We have matter, lots of it. If it ceases to exist where does it go? It can't become nothing because then it would be included in the nothingness. Therefore absolute nothingness cannot exist.

[Ethos_]

We have matter, lots of it. If it ceases to exist where does it go? It can't become nothing because then it would be included in the nothingness. Therefore absolute nothingness cannot exist.

Agreed, and this is the very reason I disagree with the notion that nothingness lies outside our observable universe. And if nothingness does not exist beyond our present universe, the cosmos is infinite.

[dlorde]

... if nothingness does not exist beyond our present universe, the cosmos is infinite.

I don't think this is necessarily the case; the universe may be finite and closed and still be all there is.

[Bill S (OP)]

Dlorde, I admire your evasive subtlety.  Let's consider a more mundane example.  You and I look into a room which we agree is devoid of human occupants.  I say: "There's no one in that room."  You say: "There cannot be no one in that room, because "no one" is a negation, so it cannot "be".  Is that not tantamount to your saying that there must be someone in that room?

[Bill S (OP)]

Thanks Pete.

 

If there had ever been (absolutely) nothing, could there be something now?   

  Yes

You have still not told me how something can emerge from nothing.

[Bill S (OP)]

...the universe may be finite and closed and still be all there is.

Agreed, but what is beyond the outer boundary of the finite universe?

Let me guess; the question is meaningless.   [8D]

[Bill S (OP)]

Alan, there are still a couple of unresolved points lingering in #8; I hope you will return to give us at least one more injection of down-to-earth scientific opinion before this thread meanders off into the bog of eternal nothingness.

[jeffreyH]

Alan, there are still a couple of unresolved points lingering in #8; I hope you will return to give us at least one more injection of down-to-earth scientific opinion before this thread meanders off into the bog of eternal nothingness.

The bog cannot be eternal as nothingness has nothing to do with time. Nothing would change so time would not exist. How do you measure a period of nothingness and what parameters do you use?

[PmbPhy]

Thanks Pete.

 

If there had ever been (absolutely) nothing, could there be something now?   

  Yes

You have still not told me how something can emerge from nothing.

That's because I don't know how it could happen. I only know that it can happen by which I mean that there's nothing in the laws of physics so far that prevents it. That may change in the future.

The laws of physics only tell us what can happen, not why. For example, when two elementary particles collide there may result many different things. Sometimes it's only the energy and momentum of each particle that changes, the sum being constant, i.e. unchanged. If I knew whether particles A and B could change into particles C and D it doesn't imply that we could tell you why it happened. It could be that someday we'll why but today we can't. As Feynman once said regarding particle physics "If anything can happen it will happen. It's possible that it's similar here.

[dlorde]

Dlorde, I admire your evasive subtlety.

I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm giving the opinion that you asked for.

Let's consider a more mundane example.  You and I look into a room which we agree is devoid of human occupants.  I say: "There's no one in that room."  You say: "There cannot be no one in that room, because "no one" is a negation, so it cannot "be".  Is that not tantamount to your saying that there must be someone in that room?

No. I already mentioned the colloquial use of 'nothing' as referring to the absence of certain types of stuff. Using 'no-one' is quite reasonable. It says that in a certain context there are no objects of a certain type. If you think about it, it's a relative statement.

To talk of 'nothing at all' is meaningless because there's no context and no relativity. There's literally nothing to say about it. It doesn't and can't exist because it is the negation of all existence.

I had hoped my example of a 'box' containing 'absolutely nothing' (that isn't really a box because sides must touch each other) would enable you to visualise  the meaninglessness of the idea in physical terms.

[dlorde]

Agreed, but what is beyond the outer boundary of the finite universe?

There would be no boundary. We've been through all this before. Finite and unbounded, like the surface of a sphere, but in 4 dimensions. There would be no 'outside'.

Let me guess; the question is meaningless.   [8D]

The premise is mistaken.

[Bill S (OP)]

The bog cannot be eternal as nothingness has nothing to do with time. Nothing would change so time would not exist.

Thanks Jeffrey!  This is precisely the point I have been trying to make (one of them, anyway).  Eternity/infinity has nothing to do with time, so there can be no change in eternity/infinity. 

Do google “Bog of Eternal Stench” if you have and lingering doubts on the subject of eternal bogs.  []

How do you measure a period of nothingness and what parameters do you use?

You don’t.  Nothingness is a concept that is no more measurable than an “infinite” sequence.  If either “exists”, it exists in infinity and is therefore not accessible to our measurement.

[alancalverd]

Alan, there are still a couple of unresolved points lingering in #8; I hope you will return to give us at least one more injection of down-to-earth scientific opinion before this thread meanders off into the bog of eternal nothingness.

Sitting here in my grease-stained overalls and muddy boots (it's the weekend - theatre scrubs and radioactive dust suits are for work days) here's the answer to

How do you measure a period of nothingness and what parameters do you use?

It's the smallest vector between two somethings.

[dlorde]

How do you measure a period of nothingness and what parameters do you use?

It's the smallest vector between two somethings.

[8D] Yes indeed. It's meaningless without the context of things (thingness?).

[Bill S (OP)]

That's because I don't know how it could happen. I only know that it can happen by which I mean that there's nothing in the laws of physics so far that prevents it. That may change in the future.

Could it not be said that the laws of physics militate against there ever being “nothing”?

The laws of physics only tell us what can happen, not why

“How” and “why” are vastly different questions.  When you said “I only know that it can happen” I wondered if you knew of, or theorised, some method that would facilitate it.

[alancalverd]

Could it not be said that the laws of physics militate against there ever being “nothing”?

It could indeed be said, but like what politicians say, it's just a collection of words with no relationship to the truth. The laws of physics are discovered mathematical approximations to what actually happens. They have no power nor even an enforcing agency.

But if you look at my parameter of nothingness, I think you will find it entirely logical and consistent with the known properties of everything.   

[Bill S (OP)]

No. I already mentioned the colloquial use of 'nothing' as referring to the absence of certain types of stuff. Using 'no-one' is quite reasonable. It says that in a certain context there are no objects of a certain type. If you think about it, it's a relative statement.

Surely you are not saying that turning “nothing” into “no-thing” would make a significant difference to the meaning.

To talk of 'nothing at all' is meaningless because there's no context and no relativity. There's literally nothing to say about it. It doesn't and can't exist because it is the negation of all existence.

There can never have been a complete absence of any-thing?

[Bill S (OP)]

Could it not be said that the laws of physics militate against there ever being “nothing”?

It could indeed be said, but like what politicians say, it's just a collection of words with no relationship to the truth. The laws of physics are discovered mathematical approximations to what actually happens. They have no power nor even an enforcing agency.

Considering how often, in threads of this nature, the laws of physics are cited as something akin to “the Word of God”, that’s a consoling quote to have to hand.

But if you look at my parameter of nothingness, I think you will find it entirely logical and consistent with the known properties of everything.

   

It's the smallest vector between two somethings.

In order to avoid being “something”, would it not have to be infinitely small?

[dlorde]

Surely you are not saying that turning “nothing” into “no-thing” would make a significant difference to the meaning.

That's right, I'm not saying that.

There can never have been a complete absence of any-thing?

If by 'absence of any-thing' you mean the 'absolutely nothing' we've been talking about, that's correct. I refer you to my several previous answers.

No offence, but I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're unwilling or unable to articulate the point you want to make. Repeatedly asking the same question in different ways doesn't seem very productive. What's on your mind? Can you not just describe what you find unsatisfactory about the answers given?