h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry, the computer ate my post. What I was trying to say was:
-------------


"to exist is an action, so when substances came into existence at the big bang, substances must also ahev come into nonexistence at the same time."



Does this make sense to *anyone* else? Cause I'm not buying it. I don't buy that existence is an action, and I haven't seen any argument that begins to convince me that it is.



"the simpel fact is stuart that nothing is a possibility and i have shown difefent perspectives and interpretations of this, which makes the entry factual."

Spook, is the whole nothing-as-substance idea original to you, or can I find out about it somewhere else? It sounds to me like your own theory.

Newton's Third law is normally stated as: Every action has an equal and opposite re-action. However to be precise, these actions are forces, so you can say this law as: Every force has an equal and opposite force. Remember that these are two seperate forces, which act upon two seperate objects, and so they do not cancel each other out.

For example when you push on a wall your hand applies a force to the wall and the wall applies an equal and opposite for on your hand.

So even if existing was an action (which it isn't) Newton's third law would not apply because it is ONLY refering to forces.


SK

GTB - existence isn't an action, it is a state, soemthing i got wrong earlier. however, existing is an action, proven by the word exist being a verb. and i even checked my oxford english dictionary which backs that up.

oh, and this nothing as a substance things is not just my idea. it is very hard to find other information about it on the internet, for the simple reason that when searching for nothing the word appears in so much.

however, there are some interesting views from Sten Odenwald scatteed across the internet. something providing some views on nothingness is http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11812.html , or slightly at http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10557.html . as i said, very hard to find information, however the possibility of nothing as a substance is not just my own theory, and when writing this entry i looked for possible interpretations or facts that could prove the existence of nothing the substance. i did not say that i think nothing is definately a substance, simply that there is the possibility.

like i have always said, this entry looks at the possibility of nothing from a factual perspective, and gives different evidence for and against it's existence.

however, since many people disagree with the interpretation, at the end of the paragraph i have added:

However, most people would disagree with this interpretation, as they would not consider existing to be a motion.

spook

Ok, there is a lot i have just read in this thread, my response will be disordered, because it is too much work to put it in order.

The turning on and off the TV thing - The TV coming on is a consequence of the action, not the action itself. The action is pressing the button, the reaction is the button pressing back your finger.

White holes - Black holes might or might not get rid of energy/mass, they certainly get heavier, so some of the mass must stay there, some might "disappear" in the singularity and come out white holes, we don't know. Stars just turn matter (hydrogen) in energy (light and heat), they do not create anything.

actions - an action can either be a verb or a noun. eg. I run races - run=verb, I am going for a run - run=noun, run is the action in both.

and i've forgotten the rest, so I'll post this and re-read the rest. This might be a simulpost because i have taken a long time writing this (i stopped 1/2way through), if so, sorry!

Tango

Oh yeah, newton, how could i forget him!

I think i will take back what i said earlier, i can't remember what i was refering too, i don't have anything to back it up with, and i'm not 100% sure it makes any sense.

Laws vs theorys - Newtons 3rd law IS a theory, everything in science is a theory, nothing can be proven, you can only get evidence, it is possible that i could walk off a cliff and not fall, gravity is only a theory, allbeit an almost universally accepted one. You are getting confused with maths, which does have proofs. A conjecture in maths hasn't been proven, a theorem (note, that "em" not "y") has been proven, it is impossible for a theorem to be proven wrong.

Tango

Thanks Tango! (someone backing at least 1 thing i've said)

the entry is totally finished now i think so if u haven't read the whole thing yet you may like to.

thanks for posting everyone so far!

spook

I've just read it top to bottom now, and it is great! Well done!

Tango

thanks tango!

it took a while but in the end, i think all of the hard work i put into this entry has paid of and i am extremely happy with the final results. it's also about 5 times the size of the very first original, and i think this show that there's a lot more to nothing then people think.

spook

You're a scout, aren't you? Do you understand what i spotted in my email to the list?

Tango

yes i did - i thought of posting but decided to wait since i'm guessing anna will see the message in the morning and get it sorted out.

how are your mocks going btw?

You understand why it's doing that? If so, then please do post, i'm curious.

Mocks? I have a history exam and german speaking and listening to go. Not long now...

Tango

I've been lurking around this discussion for a while now, not intending to say much ... until I finally reached a point where I had to break my silence.

Firstly, to Santa/Spook: I like the way the article attempts to tackle a very difficult abstract concept. I personally do not like the reliance on the dictionary for such developing scientific theories and philosophical debates as the article is skirting along. The oft-repeated word in your responses to people in this forum is "fact," but given what you talk about I don't think that word applies. I do not wish to debate that; merely to point out that this in deep philosophical debate and matters of "young" physical theory that using the word "fact" a lot tends to rub me wrong. I think the article starts out very well and has an interesting treatment on the problem with human impressions or intuition on the nature of Nothing. (All use the capitalized letter where the article would use italics as it describes currently)

I don't think that anyone would debate that some abstract concept of nothing does not exist, but you have surely seen some of the many interpretations we have of the concept. I think the first half of your article is good for the Guide because it states the nature of Nothing and some paradoxes associated with it. I think where the article starts to deviate into personal opinion/theory/philosophical interpretation (and therefore outside the scope of the edited Guide) is the second half. Specifically, where this paragraph appears:

"Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion is; 'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' The word 'exist' is a verb, and verbs are actions. If substances are able to exist in a state of existence, then since existing is an action, substances must also be able to do the opposite and exist in a state of nonexistence. One of these substances could theoretically be nothing. However, most people would disagree with this interpretation, as they would not consider existing to be a motion."

The formulation used in the article is a misstatement of Newton's Third Law that, no matter how you say that others may agree or disagree, is inappropriate. No one who understands the theory could interpret it the way you have. It is a restating of a physical law in the English language that has gained by virtue of the language itself an interpretation outside of the original formulation. Newton's Third Law (as has been pointed out) deals with the consequences of *forces*, not necessarily actions. Here is an appropriate way to state Newton's Third Law: "Whenever a body exerts a force on another body, the latter exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on the former," (from Hans Ohanian, in my college textbook "Physics," 2nd Edition, 1989 ... yeah, I know, so I'm getting old). This is a good formulation of the theory that includes concepts that have mathematical definitions (indeed, force is a vector and not a scalar quantity, unlike such terms as "action" and "verb"). To replace the concept of force with "action" or "verb" is inappropriate, I'm afraid.

To entertain your notion for a bit is an interesting exercise, but it is very different from the earlier thrust of the article, which seemed to be a great illustration of our human perceptions of Nothing and some of its paradoxical consequences. In my opinion, after that is where certain things should not go into the edited Guide but in a separate entry (that is good enough for the AGG/GAG anyway).

You develop some intriguing ideas that I think nevertheless suffer from the difficulties with using the English language as opposed to the language of science (i.e. mathematics). This is a common lament, and can be found in Dr. Stephen R. Hawking's book, _A Brief History of Time_ to name just one work (it was nice to get an updated edition of that book as well, as it's a wonderful way to see how such intelligent minds develop theories - it's like watching knowledge itself grow and mature!). I'm certain there are many other books and articles that go into more depth about re-unifying science and philosophy (as well as their languages). Frequently these texts touch on the search of a so-called Grand Unification Theory (of GUT), or Unified Field Theory that unites all of the forces of nature. This is very much cutting edge theoretical physics, and it's quite a ways out of my range personally. However, it strikes me that your attempts at giving Nothing "substance" (whatever that means physically) is closely related to Field Theories in general and what, more specifically, might be the nature of gravity and matter. I think that any rigorous definition of what Nothing might be physically is closely tied to the development of unified field theory, or theories.

In short, interesting stuff! But I think there are two articles rolled into one here. One half is right for the Edited Guide, the other half isn't.

- JD

tango - it must be to do with when Ashley accepted the entry tango, which i think someone may have mentioned. when ashley accepted it it messed up the system a bit so it reads the entry as already recommended or accepted or something, so says it is already recommended when u try to recommend it. i think i mentioned ina noter thread there may be more consequences of such a small mistake...

hopefully anna will see the message in the morning and speak to ashley or soemthing and sort out the problem so u can recommend it. at least, ithink that's what the problem is and what will happen. if it isn't, then i ain't got a clue

JD - thanks for the comment. this entry is sort of like 2 entries in 1, adn it is meant to be. it is meant to be the complete, practically everything covered about nothing entry, with stuff on english usage, the substance, and the jokes.

"I think where the article starts to deviate into personal opinion/theory/philosophical interpretation (and therefore outside the scope of the edited Guide) is the second half."

i don't include any personal opinion in there, but theory, opinion and philosophical interpretation is in there, on the advice of people such as GTB (sorry to name names but i just remembered u saying it). Showing difefrent opinions is part of the guide, as long as it doesn't claim them to be definite fact. within this section i have shown lots of difefrent thoughts on the substance Nothing, which i think is what the entry needed before.

"The formulation used in the article is a misstatement of Newton's Third Law that, no matter how you say that others may agree or disagree, is inappropriate. No one who understands the theory could interpret it the way you have."

i disagree. it may not be a general interpretation, but some peoplemay interpret it in such a matter. and it is only a theory, and is not definite fact, and how do u know it is restricted to just forces? it could have a wider, untested application. we do not know, which is why the entry suggests it as an interpretation that people could use to prove Nothing.

"You develop some intriguing ideas that I think nevertheless suffer from the difficulties with using the English language as opposed to the language of science (i.e. mathematics)."

the language of science provides no information about Nothing, therefore this entry looks at a different resource for information about it. and a dictionary not onlyprovides meaning for words, but also gives information about the actual thing, therefore there is actual information there, which is why it is used in the entry.

thanks for commenting!

spook

spook: "i don't include any personal opinion in there, but theory, opinion and philosophical interpretation is in there..."

You managed to contradict yourself in a single sentence. What other kind of opinion is there? "Impersonal" opinion? Okay, sorry, I'll behave. I don't think it's my place to say what opinion goes into the guide - I just call a spade a spade. You did put opinion in there, on that we seem to agree. Whose opinion it is doesn't really matter, I think. Whether it is acceptable to the EG isn't my call, but I thought it muddied the subject up quite badly. I also think it ignores (unfairly) several other popular ideas you regarding the two possible conclusions of General Relativity (i.e. a closed Universe with finite extent but no boundary, or an open Universe of infinite extent). There are mathematical ways of expressing these concepts, and perhaps even a mathematical way to express Nothing. I think that's a far cry from, "the language of science provides no information about Nothing," as you assert. I think physics uses a great deal of mathematics to described theories that are crucial to developing the concept Nothing.

"i disagree. it may not be a general interpretation, but some peoplemay interpret it in such a matter ..."

Anyone who does so adds untested (and more importantly untestable) aspects to the theory independent of its tested formulation. It ceases to be a theory the instant you do that, and becomes something new, something unique to your own mind, untestable, and therefore impossible to be a theory by the Scientific Method.

"... and it is only a theory, and is not definite fact ..."

Precisely my point. For it to be called a theory it must follow the Scientific Method and be testable (you can see a draft of an article that NAITA wrote with some input from me on the SM elsewhere in the PR forum, under the "Scientific Method" title if you're interested). Your interpretation is not testable.

"... and how do u know it is restricted to just forces?"

Simply put, I know it because it is a testable formulation (the fact that it came from a physics textbook I own is a bonus of course, but totally unnecessary). The way I quoted it is the way the theory was formulated. It is restricted to forces because that was how it was observed in the first place and how it has been tested. The theory was written about forces since the observations that led to its formulation by Sir Isaac Newton involved forces, not verbs or actions. The tested theory is restricted to forces because no one has tested it with anything else (well, even if they have, the only result could be a totally different theory since it would involve different phenomena). You seem to be proposing an alternate theory that has little basis to draw on Newton's 3rd Law. Namely, there is no apparent physical relationship between forces and actions (unless you think of a mass being accelerated as the only definition of an action, in which case you have Newton's 1st Law).

"it could have a wider, untested application. we do not know, which is why the entry suggests it as an interpretation that people could use to prove Nothing."

No, that is misapplication, not application. What you are suggesting is taking a scientific theory known as a Law** and proposing a completely new set of predictions not part of the original Law at all. This is an abuse of what a scientific theory is all about, and a misapplication of the Scientific Method in general. You are proposing using something based on the observations of forces (which have a physical definition) and trying to apply it to words and concepts that do not have physical definition. It's hard to imagine myself being any clearer on this point.

**Something that has a pedigree to it - in this case, a thoroughly tested hypotheseis/prediction that has stood the test of time to become a special kind of theory called a Law.

I know I seem to be beating a dead horse - but I really feel strongly about misapplications like this. It'd be a great mistake to use such a misapplication as if it were anything more than baseless conjecture. There is nothing wrong with that - but calling it a theory is a pretty serious abuse of SM.

I still do like a good chunk of the article! It isn't without hope! Please take out the bit (ab)using Newton's 3rd Law like that! I would settle for that, I think.


- JD

i'll take out the newton bit if a couple of other people agree that the entry would be ok if that bit was taken out.

spook - waiting for people to agree (hopefully)...

Yes, please. The entry's definitely better without it.

I'll agree to, get rid of it, it doesn't add anything.

Tango

ok the newton bit has now been removed from the entry. it apears that this entry may not be recommendable due to it being in a horrible loop, so i am probably gonna remove this from pr and re-submit it (i here everyone saying "oh no not again"). if id od, i will put the link of the new entry and thread here.

spook

A886296 and F48874?thread=229788

spook

ps. this entry has now been removed from peer review. plese go to new thread to comment