@@Dranok1 I know a little about a great many things; and a lot about a very few things; but I know absolutely nothing about nothing... ...for, by definition, there _is nothing to know._
You are able to describe "nothing" and here is my description: Nothing is the only thing whose only property is that it does not have another property. With this description, it should not be hard to determine if something is nothing. As to how the universe came into being, and whether it came from nothing, that is a different question.
This is a great way to describe it. The thing is, once you are able to attribute a property to it, it never WAS nothing, so it's easy to discount anything you find as 'not nothing' and be correct. Very good way to describe it.
Michael A. Stroupe at 57:20 Neil actually puts his hand over Krauses mouth to shut him up. So, If you actually watch this whole thing, is it me or does Krause and Tyson seem to be in competition for Eve Silversteins attention? This is a great discussion...one of my favorites.
It is said, that infinity is not just an unreachable quantity, It is also an entity that is by its very nature unattainable, no matter what happens or how long it takes. *Thus, it should not occur in the real physical universe, nor in any hypothetical multiverse.* Personally, I think that an objective state of nothing relative to our objective experience of a something, is as impossible as infinity. Thus, *it should not occur inside or even outside of this, our physical universe, nor any hypothetical multiverse*
Actually infinity does exist and can be reached. Infinity is a term to describe ridiculously large/small quantities. If you scale up the bases it can be achieved.
1 is infinitely greater than 0 Something is infinitely more than nothing 0 as the infinitesimally small is itself infinity, that's why it is a circle with no beginning and no end
@@seeking7656 that's what the scientist don't want to talk about because it is proof that there is a possibility of divinity. Just watching this they have a severe confirmation bias wich discludes the divine so they simply hop around that by trying to make leaps in logic that say that some physical things can be included in the definition of nothing witch is fundementily the absence of any and all substance. They try to cherry-pick what amount of something can be contained by nothing. The other thing they result in doing is sending science to the level of the divine to compensate for their world view not including the notion of divinity.
Shaun Graham I lost you there, what does it says, could you pls expose your thought? There are also children asking "how" FYI. When a child deconstructs things, strokes petals before tearing them off, etc., he's not asking "why" but "how".
HawkFest RoG Children are new to the experience of being alive and full of questions about existence. They are more apt to wonder 'why' things are than 'how' do things work. Evolution is extremely interesting but not as interesting as 'Why are we here?'.
Shaun Graham that's a wishful thinking. The "why's" happen much later than the "how's". As having abstract ideas and thinking also comes later, that's another fact. In fact most of the time "why's" can be translated into "how's", advertisers don't show the reality don't forget this.. I won't repeat my example, read it again if you don't remember : what would you think of this? When you talk to a child about religion, you tell him/her about the How's (and magic) behind, not about the why's nor abstract philosophies : he/she will be interested by the how's. The only "why" is around 1-3 year old : is it bad or good? e.g. does it make him/her cry or smile? That's all, all the rest is about the how.
+Shaun Graham I have a bit of an issue with that. The "Why?" that young children ask isn't much different than "How?", "How?" is just a little more sophisticated. That is, it's not a matter of intelligence but a matter of knowledge. They see something that happened, and ask why that happened. They're told not to do something and ask why not. It's a very important question to ask, in my opinion. I've said many times that children are generally among the smartest people (and by correlation that stupid is a learned behavior) because they ask "Why?", and sitting within that little word is the recognition of not knowing, and recognizing that you don't know something is the first step toward leaning. I think it's a bit further to go from the "Why?" that children ask to "Why are we here?" than to "How?".
+Matt W It is the natural progression of humans, as children, to move from 'why' to 'how'. Why is the question that must be ask first - before comprehension - of principles and integrated systems, etc. - 'why' is the natural state of the young mind prior to knowledge. How can not be asked, except as a parrot, by someone unfamiliar with mathematical and scientific processes, even rudimentary ones. It is only as people 'mature' that they are interested in such things as being, as you put it "...a little more sophisticated." The problem of the modern scientific mind in a nutshell. Thanks for playing.
My own personal experience of nothing was under the effect of general aenesthetics. Everything just went boom! to nothing in an instant and suddenly any concousness of time, space or whatever just ceased to be, until I woke up and then everythng came back into existence. To be aware of that gap in the perception of self was both reasuring and scary at the same time. Of course this is an account from the point of view of the observer. Where was my conciousness gone? To me it raised personal questions as if this concept of nothingness is what our destiny, then this moment of somethingness is quite more relevant. Sorry, I know this is far from being a scientific view of what nothing is. Just an account from a normal human being that slept.
I understand. It is so easy to believe that we come from nothing and that we go into nothing if you think that when we sleep for most of our sleep we are not self aware at all. It is actually comforting to think that.
An unpopular view, but it almost seems as if consciousness itself, as we define it, may be an operative function of cellular activity. Or at the very least neurological activity that's codependent, theoretically, on the body's anatomic structural integrity. --- Just a whimsical thought.
@hitogokochi Actually Hito, there is something _physical_ about literally everything you've said. -- I think what you were probably trying to hilight was the _interpretation_ of those senses. I never insinuated that consciousness was physical, I was saying how the experience could very well be a byproduct of multi-cellular activity working as one(body). -- Also, there is no unified theory on what consciousness even is. It's as unique as our genetics themselves(ancestral experience). -- And lo and behold, anything that has some merit of consciousness; ie life, is always accompanied by complex cellular activity. After years of pondering this -- including sharing a stance similar to yours at one point, this is probably not coincidental. The cellular relationship that makes up our anatomy.
Nothing is the non area non reality not existing outside of ours or any given universe, but nothing can be found everywhere within our universe as well, it exists everywhere measured smaller than the Plank length. Any measurement, even within matter, smaller than the Plank length will contain nothing.
I agree with you, The problem is they go so fast on their explanations and interpretations that they're extremely confusing to most people, Get it? Welcome to the circus publishing blend of religion, metaphysics, philosophy, and science,, all trying to make scientific sense out of nothing which is something. This is Infinite propoganda, and/or infinite confusion, and infinite money from all this mass confusion!!!!! ......+picklesnorf101
She said that geometries like a simple energy line, or a sting basically become non geometric and non dimensional at a small enough size, so it's relationship to our reality and a zero geometric reality is entirely different that our finite perception of reality . Energy still exists there but in a different form because this form is non geometric and super syymetrically infinite, and this super syymetrically infinite system must always exist if any finite to infinite equation is to succeed rationally and explain the infinite.... That was your Mr. Spock quote for today
CRAZY INSANE VIDEOS What's odd in this whole chit-chat about nothingness, is that they try to put the Universe at our level of comprehension, while also trying to be scientifically rational: it just can't happen without confusing contradictions. Simple: if we should consider very very small stuff as "nothing" so that we understand whatever, than why try to rationalize some constitutive nature of such nothingness? The fact of trying to insinuate nothingness while it's actually not true, that's what's utterly confusing, it doesn't help at all in understanding whatever they babble between each others. I prefer to try grasping the very small (or huge) or uncertain nature of things instead of this. BTW, that journalist is again trying to reinterpret the Bible scriptures so that it fits current science. It's ridiculous (now "nothing" = "chaos".. But what is chaos? Some level of misunderstanding? lol). If one wants to look at science seriously, he should get rid of the Bible while doing so. If believing in God only involves filling some intellectual/scientific gaps and nothing else, then such weak God would mean nothing, if not to be against human evolution since he would only thrive upon our ignorance and intellectual weaknesses.
its is on the level of anyone's comprehension if the proper words are chosen to understand it in a physical sense without geometry. It is a piece of cake to understand it!!! Give me $500 and I'll send you my masterpiece paper on it, far better than richard gott and his time travel stunt, or krauss and his half baked explanations, or eve and her intellectual (I'm a genius and your not) showmanship, or Holt on his endless religious denials. NO GODS REQUIRED!!!! What a comedy of confusing errors life is for the fallen elites and their borg counterparts. Q from star trek must be eternally laughing his arse off.
"It's a show about nothing" "nothing?" "nothing" "well it must be about something" "no, it's about nothing" Seinfeld, lol. I watched this whole thing and was interested in all of their opinions on what nothing is but if you just skip around, you hear the word "nothing" every time you skip almost, it's ridiculous how much time they spent arguing what nothing is, but I understand why
Yeah I understand way too it's because they're a bunch of professional bullshitters hosted by the grandmaster bullshitter of all time douche bag and charlatan Tyson
I don't know if this is a stupid question or not but I have to ask. If there ever was absolutely nothing wouldn't that have meant that there was absolutely no potential for anything all? I have seen various physicists trying to get around that part of a theory like the Big Bang, you know, where did the initial quantum singularity come from and the response is usually in a question, this one, why did it have to come from anywhere? So back to my question, it has me wondering if there's such a thing as negative potential or something else that could explain absolute nothingness producing a Universe or a singularity.....I'm under the impression that there has to be potential in order for anything to happen.
trytip x. no man, that's not what I mean. "Nothing" can't be described as something which came from anywhere. But, I enjoyed your word picture painting and understand. I used to read theories and hear scientists say, that before the big bang is a nonsensical question as there was no "before" and there was no "where" because all space and time were created after the big bang event. now there's brane theory and multiverse and an oscillating bang/crunch theory and now a recent new twist on that which proposes that in an ever expanding Universe the end is like the beginning, such a low entropy state that somehow another big bang happens and it begins again. there's a lot of theories these days. I think it might be helpful to start a process of elimination. so, with that in mind, the original Big Bang theory is either valid and worth further consideration or its not. which is why I ask, without referencing another dimension or any force or fluctuation, in a state devoid of any source, force, quality, quantity, area,volume, in other words, without description by comparison, absolute Nothingness. could it have Potential? My pea brain tells me no. without any potential, can anything happen? again, pea brain says no. if that is true, the Big Bang as I understand it never happened because it couldn't have. But, if there is something called Negative Potential which I don't know about, then "Nothing" would have an infinite amount of it. I'm trying to remember my math from almost fifty years ago, there are imaginary numbers which are real useful, negative numbers add up. but I left school at fifteen years old almost fifty years ago and so, all I really have is my imagination which exists devoid of an education....like the initial quantum singularity in its void and if I can gain some input somewhere somehow, that one brain cell is going to bang and I could reach enlightenment. So tell me please, is there Negative Potential which could in some convoluted mind bending way produce a change in state?
Peter K. Yes you have assumed correctly. However, The thing before The BIg Bang is known as the "Primordial Fireball". All the matter in the Universe crushed down into the size smaller than an atom. Than in an instant EXPLODES! How and Why? It was and is GOD's "intellectual design" and His creation of the Heavens and Earth. HE is the Alpha and Omega. HE is the something from which it all began. HE is the one in control and HE is the giver of Eternal Life after death. We are living the final days before the Thousand Years as prophesied in the book of Revelations. Only through HIM!! NOTHING creates NOTHING! GOD will destroy the Earth and all Evil afterwards, re-create Earth for HIS kingdom, Heaven on Earth, the third Earth age to come. Amen.
"If there ever was absolutely nothing wouldn't that have meant that there was absolutely no potential for anything all?" The answer to that is, evidently, no. Because we definitely have "something". Even appealing to a god doesn't stop the fact that something will have had to have come from nothing at some point.
I read alot of comments knocking how obnoxious Tyson was in this video, But in his defense he always does his best to keep everyone in the loop who may not pick up on something or whom needs a guide. Yes for more advanced minds it can ne annoying but educating amateurs about science does alot more for science. Tyson is always teaching that's makes him unique and sympathetic towards all listeners for the better of science moving foward.
The lack of attention on Eastern philosophy, which has plenty to say on Nothingness, is quite irritating. What Seife mentioned about nothingness and infinity being quite similar actually has some merit. Kurt Vonnegut once said, "Everything is nothing with a twist" and Western philosophers such as Alan Watts have elaborated on this notion (using his knowledge of both science and Eastern philosophy). In Eastern philosophy, there is this notion that there can't be something without nothingness because a Something is only known and differentiated by Nothingness. There is a symbiotic relationship between something and nothing that cannot be conceived if one or the other did not "exist". Science and philosophy are very complementary fields and it's this one-track minded fascination that one or the other must be the correct description of reality really limits philosophers and scientists alike. This discussion would have been a lot more fruitful if there wasn't constant bickering over whether philosophy or science is better. Unfortunately,this panel seemed more about ego than a love for knowledge. Both fields intellectually observe the same set of questions in different ways. Different does not mean wrong.
Wow, you said exactly what I was thinking about them omitting Eastern philosophy which dates earlier than their philosophers. "The DAO that can be expressed is not the eternal DAO. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. “Non-existence” I call the beginning of Heaven and Earth. “Existence” I call the mother of individual beings. Therefore does the direction towards non-existence lead to the sight of the miraculous essence, the direction towards existence to the sight of spatial limitations. Both are one in origin and different only in name. In its unity it is called the secret. The secret’s still deeper secret is the gateway through which all miracles emerge." And for some reason I also thought of the wisdom of Kurt Vonnegut while watching this.
So glad to see Watts and eastern philosophy mentioned here. Watts’s lecture on nothingness makes more sense to me than any of these guys. The best explanation here was that nothing and infinity are two sides of the same coin, an analogy that Watts himself probably would have used.
Nonwestern Nothingness is based on Noncommutative Phase logic as Eddie Oshins realized. He was a quantum physicists working at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and he also taught Wing Chun Neigong (internal martial arts).
It's not a clever point, you're essentially saying "Well what is stopping this balloon from floating? Nothing is holding it down" What's stopping the balloon from floating is the balloons own non-existence.
Heidi's poem (4:07): Nothing speaks volumes Imprisoned dreams jailed for ever Forgiveness weeps No tears are released Silence begs for ease Anger has no hope Indifference rejoices While Nothing holds court with the jesters of Time Nothing waits, and waits.
51:00 English is not the correct language to speak when talking about physics. No human language (English, Spanish, Greek, Aramaic) are precise enough for these topics. You can describe physics with language, so long as you understand that the description is not precise. Only mathematics can describe physics precisely, and even then, we aren't really sure exactly HOW precise we are being. No one could precisely describe an orbit until the Calculus was invented. I think that there is another, as yet to be invented mathematics which will help us more precisely describe the world, especially quantum effects.
TheGodEmperorofMankind Okay, I think you misunderstand. I am saying that these things they describe sound crazy to us laymen because we can't precisely understand what they are describing. People become confused when they hear these things because they think that what is being described is exactly what is happening. I am saying it isn't true. They laymen (like you and me) need to understand what the physicists describe in English isn't EXACTLY what is taking place. I provided a time stamp with my comment to provide the context for which my comment is meant. Go and watch at about 51:00. Just click the time stamp, it will take you right there.
It is also important to note that many of these ideas still only exist as math. We have mathematical models and predictions, but observation of things, like inflation fields, are impossible with our current limitations.
Andrew Price But those limitations are being expanded every day. We can do things today that blow the minds of people from just 5 years ago. Imagine what someone from 50 years ago (1966) would think. What will we be doing 50 years from now?
but wuns I get to the end of my twelve flingers and ateteen toes my math skills varnish witch leafs me ownlie my inglish wif witch too solvent the great miniseries of the Univers.
And there is the solution to the riddle. Not every word makes sense. "Nothing" is one of those that do not, at least not if used as a negation to the totality of existence.
43:17 "It's not heavy, they're my universes." lol that deserved a bigger laugh. (He's not heavy, he's my brother.) A few interesting points to think about, but not a satisfying talk. The philosophical question is the interesting one. Krauss should have expanded on why it is necessarily a physical question.
Claiming that nothing exists is logically the same as claiming non-existence exists... It's an obvious contradiction, and it should be understood as such. The concept 'nothing' is only ever meaningful in the context of a more fundamental level of existence. The amusing comment above, "I watched all this for nothing" is only meaningful because it is understood in the wider context of our motivations and purposes for doing things. That we do things, and usually have reasons for doing whatever we do, is the context that makes doing something for no reason a meaningful possibility. We are in effect saying that, in this particular case, we had no reason for what we did. The particular case is meaningful only in the wider context that we do things, and we usually do them with some purpose or result in mind. In other words, 'nothing' doesn't have a meaning on its own.
For me, nothingness equates to a form of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. You can either know the exact location of a particle or the exact velocity of it. As you approach one, the other becomes more and more uncertain. Similarly, as you approach nothingness, it doesn't remain nothingness, it becomes something! And then you aren't really discussing nothing!
The existence of nothing is a contradiction, nothing is non-existence. I think maybe a better way to say this is does the idea of 'nothing' make sense in a physical universe. This might have allowed the discussion to be a bit more fruitful. At the end I must say I did not feel that there was any real progress towards answering the question.
Agreed, the discussion went off-topic several times, but as Gott asserted (paraphrasing), "Nothing does not exist, so there's 'nothing' to talk about." In all fairness, there's really no way to have an argument for nothingness without discussing what is. It cannot be measured but only assumed by "gaps" in the physical world.
Funny thing about this is that if you think about it "nothing" exists by not existing. When you ask why is there something rather than nothing, you're agreeing that something exists, and nothing doesn't exist, but by it's own definition nothingness is non-existent, so for nothing "to be" it would have to not be.
How has Kraus written a book about nothing without knowing zero arrived with the Babylonians from India (along with 'Arabic' numerals), founded in Buddhist ideas of emptiness? Buddhists hold that existence is eternal also - not just some remote tribe, but one of the worlds major religions!
Not only that, most of the people dont have the ability to think if croud can hear them well. I would also want to add another thing to this topic, most of the time we have no interaction with the microphone and most of them have different specifications, some work perfectly when they are close some work perfectly when they are little further. Imho we should not complain about that and just enjoy the ride gathering all that awsome knowledge they give us.
Nothing = Everything. There is no beginning, infinity is always there. One cannot say `When did infinity begin`? There`s always something before something, and always something after anything. Everything = nothing. Infinity and all it contains is forever!
Since something exists, then you might say that nothing doesn't exist since something is filling the nothingness. But to say that it is an impossibility is wrong.
+Norman The fact something exists does not imply nothing does. Ok, it just doesn't follow. Saying the universe is expanding into nothing is totally meaningless, nothing can't be expanded into because it's not there... In every case you attempt to posit the existence of nothing, you find you can't do it, because the word is defined as something that doesn't exist. So it's impossible to ever talk meaningfully about an existent nothingness, it would be like asking "how heavy does purple smell like?" It's just nonsense.
I just said how the fact that something exists implies that nothing does. You can't have something unless there was nothing first, therefore it has existed and therefore it can exist. Saying that the universe is expanding into nothing is not meaningless, since its taking up the space that nothing occupied, and is filling it with something, in this case the somethingness of our universe.
FRIENDS, Indian mathematicians had zero (nothing) for thousands of years - why are they there deleting half of humanity in this talk and thus delegitimising the capital of humans by virtue that they were not from Greece. I bet the Greeks borrowed from the Indian people and Egypt which too borrowed form India hence their surge in Greek science/ culture
Neil's constant interruptions and attempts at being cutesy and funny are madly annoying. Rather than being elucidating, he repeatedly arrested the progression of the discussion and the talking points that participants were trying to expand upon. Lawrence is only a little less guilty of this but his manifest smugness is very off-putting. They both are mega vainglorious and simply love to hear themselves talk. Still, it managed to be a very interesting discussion but could have been much more so with a host who was more interested in facilitating rather than entertaining.
gregory s I was going to say something very similar but I think you’ve summed it up quite well. The only thing I’d add, is how interesting it was that Lawrence called Neil out for interrupting in his very first chance to talk! Then he expresses the expectation of being interrupted later in the discussion. Some foreshadowing of sorts?
How can Jim Holt, with a straight face, deny to Lawrence Krauss that using the word "Why" implies intentionality, when it absolutely does? "How" is a much better question to ask of something that may not have had a reason to exist. It's ironic that Holt makes a jab at Krauss earlier in the program that scientists should keep philosophers around to show them how to use words properly. Perhaps Holt feels threatened by the superior relevance of "How in there something rather than nothing?" instead of "Why?" because the title of his book utilizes the latter.
How can Krauss claim that Something can come from NOTHING when Nothing cannot be PROVEN given that if it were proven in a lab, that is not nothing already ? English allows ambiguity and thats why there are many definitions of Nothing, Zero, infinity etc.
because you and many others misunderstand him. He means, that there is NO nothing, nothing simply doesnt exist. What he says is that what people _think_ of nothing is actually something.
***** Can you demonstrate in some way that we have 'evolved into knowledge' we already had? I have a suspicion that you're not a fan of the burden of proof - but we'll see.
@@TheLastOutlaw-KTS I never did say that I would want to. What blows my mind the most is the ancient Greeks. If there was no "Zero" then what would they call 1 minus 1?
reality,we see through our senses... ie.. w see reality as PER our senses.as to what reality is, remains a mystery. . existence of anything ,is phenomenal... inherent existence ,is a fiction. nothing exists INHERENTLY.. all is interlinked and interconnected,nothing can or do exist apart and alone.. (Buddha and also Einstein)
This is an interesting comment & I try to expain exactly this to people & I'm suprised at those who can't grasp it. It's nothing more than an expansion of the "tree falling in the woods". The sound is produced by our senses.So with that I ask, if life wasn't arround to observe the universe, would it exsist?
A good way to consider the question. Maybe there is no difference, infinity and zero have many common properties. According to Lawrence you need 'nothing' to get the 'something' really it seems to be the classic chicken and egg question, which came first. And remember we don't actually know which way 'time' goes!!
CircularLogic The sound is not produced by our senses but by vibrations of the atmosphere given off by the tree falling. The noise we here is a subjective experience but the sound waves would exist were we there or not, in short the tree doe make a sound when it falls even if no one hears it
Victor Higgins "Sound" is humans short way of saying " My ear drums are vibrating". The falling tree may vibrate the air when it falls,but those vibrations will only be called a sound if those vibrations vibrate a human ear drum.
I watched the religious version of this debate. They announced 5 different theists. The first guy gave his opening remark. He said, "Why are we here? God." Everyone agreed and the talk was over. It was magical. Total time, about 1.5 minutes.
Lawrence's idea of nothing is more like the idea of everything. So in his representation of the birth of the universe is more like a universe out of everything than a universe out of nothing.
When Krauss says "nothing," he means nothing, not an “all” that is somehow equivalent to nothing. I suspect that you're describing what DeGrasse allowed you to hear. His approach to "moderating" was both heavy-handed and clearly favoured the journalists and "science writers" on the panels over the three actual physicists. If I were Krauss, Gott or Silverstein, I'd start refusing DeGrasse's calls after manipulative non-sense like this.
Thanks Neil. Eva (especially) and then J. Richard and Charles were superb! Especially Eva who, it seems, talked exclusively about what she was asked about in an intriguing vernacular. I got a peek into her world! Jim and Lawrence were less interesting as they seem to color their intellectual arguments by arguing. Geez.
I respectfully disagree. Nothing is the absence of something less than zero not even a vacuum(sort of); where as infinity is something up to no one knows where it ends.
@@wesb8159 The absence of something is a simplistic view of zero.....I’d suggest reading “The Book of Nothing” by John D. Barrow. It’s really a great read
You can not speak of what is not. The point being, as soon as you speak of nothing you give it substance. However, you only give it substance as a concept. Nothing is simply the absence of something, but nothing itself is something because we have conceptualized it as such. You are struggling to find the right answer when you are asking the wrong question. As far as the problem of something coming from nothing. I believe everything is cyclical. Some things appear to be linear depending on your perspective, but in reality there is no beginning or end. The life cycle of the universe is as infinite as the circumference of a circle. The point at which the universe seems to be nothing is merely the point as which the universe appears to be as close to our concept of nothing as we can imagine. It seems to me that we are just struggling to perceive different states of the same thing. The matter is always there, the antimatter is always there, everything is always there. You`re dealing with something that`s infinitely small, infinitely large, infinitely old, and infinitely young all at the same time. The human brain is wired to make sense of everything, but this is a problem that will never make sense in any traditional sense of the world. I think the symbol for infinity is the closest we can get to a physical representation of the universe. The intersection is a massive black hole. The seed of the big bang. Gravity makes the universe expand outward just as it makes it contract inward. It`s simply a fluctuation of pressure. As for what exists outside of this universe, it could be something, but I think as far as we should be concerned it`s nothing. If the universe encompasses everything we know, anything outside of it is the literal definition of nothing until we can prove otherwise.
John Galliah Concepts have no substance though. IMO, it's easy to speak of what is not. The expression "The absence of all properties" is a good way to do so as it makes it clear that any kind of manifestation of anything will be a violation of the concept - which would rule out everything Lawrence talks about as candidates for nothing. I completely agree with what you say about a cyclical nature though. As far as I can tell, it's a logical contradiction to claim otherwise under any worldview to say that something fundamentally "began"(from nothing) and as actual infinite pasts wouldn't explain anything in the first place, we're pretty much left with a finite nature that cycles through a finite set of states(as a consequence of its finite nature there must be a finite set of states - or at least a finite set of states that approximates nature if nature is inherently analogue(but still finite)). _"As for what exists outside of this universe, it could be something, but I think as far as we should be concerned it`s nothing."_ Well, they would be indistinguishable, but I think you're in danger of misusing the word "universe" there as the vocabulary around multiverses, omniverses, metaverses etc is hopelessly confused. I prefer the "Universe=the sum of everything that exists" definition and describe any limitations on knowledge in epistemic terms rather than in terms of ontology. I feel I have good reasons to not care about things I can never know, even in theory, and I'm happy to adopt the default position of nonexistence for all existential claims, which pretty much solves the issue of parts of nature that might be fundamentally inaccessible to us and doesn't do damage to our interest in figuring out as much as possible about the things we can access.
John Galliah Hey Guy, You made sense in your statement up to the point of where you say it boils down to nothing at all. Science says that it must always boil down to absolute zero kelvin coldness along with its eternal effects. Absolute zero cannot dissaper entirely. In other words, absolute zero's effects never dissapear into magic goo, supernatural spagetti monsters agents, or any other silly BS nonsense.......
nothingness in its proper definition is nothing at all to make anything with. Theists and metaphysicians (Theists in disguise) Play endless mind games with that word. The was the monkey BS report for today. Amen
Love these discussions. My wish is that that audio could be adjusted to the different speakers, especially for Neil, his volume is way too high. No disrespect to him or what he has to say, brilliant man. For 2014 I hope the audio is tested before recording that way we can hear what everyone has to say.
tal cual. la capacidad de conocer esta limitada por los instrumentos con los que se percibe. continúan digitalizando la realidad que es continua, solo porque el instrumento para percibirla lo es ( la mente ) wtf? es como pixelar un circulo o una esfera....
@Jonathan Wheeler science is way underfunded on an non-institutional level. What do you expect? If the big tech companies where into pure science, they'd all have their individual LHC.
First of all “nothing” does not exist outside of our imagination. The universe we live in does not contain “nothing”. Zero is different from nothing. Zero is a mathematical number: There are three numbers: 1, zero and imaginary number (square root of -1). Mathematics has its universe and is basically the creation (or discovery) of us, humans, in order to help us, give us a tool to better understand the nature (another word for the universe) in which we live in. Mathematics is derived from language and is based on rules of logic, which is ingrained in our mind. The common area of roots of mathematics and the nature is the structure of brain (which is a part of nature) and gives us the ability to communicate in languages. We can imagine “nothing” as we can imagine zero but cannot experimentally find “nothing”. There’s no more to be said about nothing and nothingness.
This debate is great! But also I think they would have benefited from having a mathematician (particularly a logician or a set theorist) on the panel as well as a neuroscientist. A mathematician would have been concern of the formal definitions of zero and nothingness as they play a fundamental role in set theory (and in mathematics in general) and a neuroscientist might stir the debate to consciousness, the possibility of emptiness of thought and how we create those concepts in our brains. It seems to me that nowadays the fields of science have grown apart from each other so much that there is not enough interdisciplinary talk between the different ramifications of science. It seems very important to me to bring them back together as much as we can because in the end all of the different fields are trying to discover the mysteries of nature. I understand there is a vast knowledge in each field and the language each field uses is only understood by experts on that field, but we have to keep open the possibility for a connection between them because nature is a whole interconnected system and not separate individual parts that don't influence each other. The brain is influenced by electrochemical reactions as well as thermal energy and somehow this creates consciousness. Consciousness is the only way by which we can create ideas, concepts and formal mathematical definitions which are bound by the language that we use to express them (which actually vary between different languages and cultures). From the concepts we create (particularly mathematical) physics is developed which of course at a greater scale gives rise to chemistry, then biology, then organisms, societies of organisms all the way up to galaxies and the universe itself. And trying to understand the universe brings us back to the concepts we use to define it which again are tied to how we think those concepts.
I think they would have benefited from having about half the number of people they had. three of the guys were chomping at the bit to speak anytime anyone else was speaking, and two of them would not speak until invited. I couldn't help but spend the whole time with a countdown in the background on who was currently excluded the longest
I have watched and rewatched this more times than I can count. It is the most interesting question in the universe to me. I wish someone would have entered this into the conversation. No matter what, you can keep asking the question 'what created the universe' forever. This is because there will always be a cause and effect in our human brains confined to the 3rd dimension. We can not conceive of nothingness and the concept of something existing without a creation. You could say quantum fluctuations created the universe. But ok, so, you could also ask the question well, where did the quantum fluctuations come from? You can say it came from a higher dimensional energy source or something. Then you would be like, ok, what made the HD energy? The non-Euclidean geometry spiders? Oh shit, well where did those come from? The infinity square? OK....cool. cool cool. You can never answer the question as long as there is something happening. Nothingness is nothing. No physics. no Vacuum, no something happening. You have to arrive at the conclusion that since the universe does indeed exists, that question can not be answered without nothingness being involved eventually. So, not only does true nothingness exist, existence definitely came from it.
Whenever I think we discovered total emptiness, void, we still find some kind of existence, I conjecture that we will never find true nothingness, therefore nothingness does not exist. But then again the non-existence of nonexistence is non existence per definition, therefore proving that non-existence exists at least in one form ... On the other hand if true nothingness is proven to exist then there would be no need for the above explanation. Either way the paradox : nothing exists : is verified.
Im not that smart, but my view in this would be... that nothing is something and that something is defined by nothing in order for us to try and comprehed "nothing" not the word, and the thing in itself.
Tyson and Krauss destroyed this debate. I am so tired of hearing Neil's stupid chuckle. He interrupts 90% of the time to make himself laugh. Nothing wrong with comedy, but after watching a handful of these debates, I can safely say I left just slightly more informed than when I walked in.
my thought, too. those moments when he just interrupted and chuckled instead of discussing the topic or let those people debate around the topic.... so annoying.
Will Neil deGrasse and Lawrence Krauss let others talk uninterrupted . Would have been a good discussion if they had just shut up when the rest of the panelists were talking.
Thank you all for such an amazing talk and sharing with us..I am a student of physics and do study philosophy.I was stumbled at this question nothingness is sth so big and out of thought if you think and you keep God out of this question ..it was so amazing
With reference to the second question from the audience, the lack of a definite article in Hebrew is not the same thing as in English when we have an indefinite article. One might say that in Hebrew there is a "nothing" state with neither definite article, which Hebrew has, nor indefinite article, which it does not have but is not necessarily implied by the lack of the definite article. So the lack of a definite article, with which we would translate "the beginning", does not directly point to inserting an indefinite article in English; and further, the lack of a Hebrew definite article can actually indicate a stronger definiteness than having a definite article in English. Thus "nothing" can be more definite than something, in terms of Hebrew grammar translating into English.
Depends on how you define Nothing. Zero is nothing but it is something. Is nothing between the gaps? Nope that's space. Is space nothing? Sure. I learned its not nothing enough. So what is further than space time (our known universe). Nothing is just escaping our expanding universe. It is a concept. Someday we will define a nothing that we need to make sense of the universe just like when we defined zero. Since we are in 4D, TXYZ, we cant go back in T due to thermodynamics, I can define reverse T travel as going to nothing. Also gong to T too far forward also delivers, nothing. Escaping the universe. Ripping through the universe is just that. And you need the tools of outside the universe to do this.
I'm no scientist, but here's a question. If time slows down as you get closer to strong gravity, black holes etc (Interstellar), it should hold good that it speeds up as a point in space is subject to lesser and lesser gravity. If you have a point in space where there is absolutely nothing all over, time should speed up to infinity? Which would mean that if you have nothing, time moves so fast that at that point, it is undetectable until there is no more nothing in that space. Which means that nothing can not exist?
The theory is called relativity because it's relative to the observer. So if you were near a strong gravitational well (interstellar) relative to somebody on earth their time would be slowing down but relative to them their time is normal. And if they're in an Inertial reference frame there is no way to tell which one slower which ones faster. What time is it just depended on gravity that is one thing that affects time dilation is also dependent on speed if you're moving near the speed of light time will slow down relative to somebody stationary. If you send a clock near the speed of light, it will be slower then one here on earth.
+Aaron Weymouth ok relativity right. Time then is no longer absolute of course. Would the same apply to distances too or any of the dimensions. I'm just playing with the idea. Which I guess can extend to the existence everything being relative even "nothing". To me there's nothing outside of what I can perceive.
+Arun Ramakrishnan right, it's kind of hard. To try to talk about "nothing", which we have no experience or experimental evidence haha. Yeah distances could be relativistic as well. Look up the muon experiment. The gist of it is since the particle is moving so close to the speed of light the distance that it travels relative to it contracts but relative to us it is the same distance it's really cool because it changes relative to the observer it's too long to explain over this but just look up a video on it super cool
All of them keep interrupting each other... I find Lawrence Krauss is especially rude. For smart people they argue like children. . Other than that the debate is interesting
Opus got it right. Read Neil's autobiography, he touches upon exactly this "issue" of being too excited when debating something that is just too damn interesting.
Lawrence, in my opinion, is the most qualified for this debate so its no wonder he would want to interrupt when he could. He is, afterall, one of the first people to suggest dark energy. The energy of nothing.
EnemyTortoise 15 I don't know, he seems unprepared to discuss the topic, and missed the point few times. Jim Holt rightly corrected him about his idea of "space-time popping into existence".
Dark Matter Neil is Lawrence’s Bitch, because they’re both atheists and Neil is star struck by Lawrence because Lawrence fearlessly shouts to the world that there’s not a God, where-as Neil still gives God some probability around certain people in order to stay in the mainstream, instead being relegated to a small corner like Lawrence. Neil actually feels guilt about his own hypocrisy. Lawrence has no hypocrisy therefore he has no guilt, but he’s hated by most of the world, where-as Neil is loved by most of the world, and in some countries has ‘rockstar’ status that Lawrence will never even experience from the people who agree with him.
You have to love NGT for adding so much energy to what would normally be a very boring conversation. He has an ability to notice the discussion is getting too complicated and is able to explain what they are talking about in simple terms.
In my opinion this was a perfect panel. Everyone seemed to mesh so well, not in terms of agreement but in terms of stimulating fantastic debate and theory.
in this universe where there are infinite universes that have all possible combinations of properties and events, is there one that is the ONLY universe?
Such a pleasure watching this bunch of nerds, cracking absolutely genius geek jokes, that even now, 8 years later, I had no hesitation donating to whatever was their cause!
The problem I have with his piece of glass, is that the emergences are parallel, side by side. Instead of nested within each other, as we see in the universe.
Very stimulating conversation on the simulation ! Very bright people pondering the nature of the reality we find ourselves experiencing ! This is no doubt creating interest in the minds of young people to persue the sciences as an exciting career !
What if nothing can only be paradoxical? To have nothing always leaves you with the potential for everything. We just exist in one strand or state of the infinite possibilities. Yet we don't.
If you have not seen it, this one is a real treat with Neil, Krauss, Brian Greene, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and others. /watch?v=9mLMxWhGSbs {:o:o:} Edit: actually, I think that's a copy or a mirror. Here is part 1 and 2 of the original: /watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo /watch?v=40YIIaF1qiw
I first realized that I had an interest in nothing by watching Jerry Seinfeld's TV show. Since then, my interest in nothing has become a passion for nothing.Which is why I love discussions like this. Because at the end of it, the conclusions that everyone has come to really leads to nothing. Which for me is cool, because even tho I am not and will never be anywhere near as inelligent as the people in this discussion group, I do try to live my life as close to nothing as much as I can (or more specifically, as close to to nothing as I can percieve it). As a matter of fact, as oon as I finish typing these words, I plan to live the rest of today by doing nothing. To my wife's continued chargrin, of course.
Krauss can't let his hatred for religion go for even one second. I had to stop it when he started his rant. I used to like him(Physics of Star Trek) but now i despise the man.
+THE AMERICAN PATRIOT ... A few things to combine. Macrobiotic Yin & Yang Philosophy and its dietary recommendations. Religions that include reincarnation. Science with its Hubble UDF observations of 176 Billion other galaxies. The up-coming 2018 James Webb Infrared Space Telescope expected to find over One Trillion galaxies. Oh yeah, most top Astronomy Scientist's now speculating many other earth-like (hell) planets within such a vast infinite material universe. Finally, Jesus In India ~ The 18 Missing Years.
ALLinALLgood it just gets old. He doesn't believe in a God. OK.so does he get a cash prize for repeatably saying it? If he hates religion so much he's more than welcome to move to North Korea where religion is banned.
Lots of things within this infinite material universe exist that have yet to be proven. For example, before man ever discovered atoms and germ microbes they did in fact still exist. All the many various planets and other galaxies also existed long before man had ever discovered them. Your "if it can't be proven it does not exist" logic is highly flawed. Now if you are specifically referring to how it is that humans cannot prove whether a God exists or not, I would also say that you do not live within the spiritual realm at this very moment in time. Of coarse God eludes you. However, if you could decalcify your pineal gland/God Gland you would better be able to vibrationally sense God and the Spiritual World. Hexafluorosilicic-acid/sodium fluoride is purposefully being put into our drinking water and other store bought beverages and food stuffs in order to calcify our pineal gland from receiving infinite universe frequencies/The Holy Spirit. Even Stanley Kubrick tried to warn us of this way back in 1964. RUclips: Dr Strangelove - Fluoridation 2
Live from Crazytown USA 2020! I sleep with youtube autoplay on. Every time I wake up there is a different Tyson -Degrassi vid. I am getting educated in Astrophysics by default! lol :)
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥ Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate || Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih || Meaning: 1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This (Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna comes Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is manifested) , 2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna Indeed Remains (Because Divine Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite). 3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace. And that is the answer to nothingness..and the answer to the God
just spent 2 hours watching a group of physicists argue about the definition of Nothing. 10/10 would watch again.
All are experts for nothing. WTF.
I know a little about a great many things,
a great deal about very few things,
everything about nothing,
and nothing about everything else.
@@Dranok1
I know a little about a great many things;
and a lot about a very few things;
but I know absolutely nothing about nothing...
...for, by definition, there _is nothing to know._
@@TshaajThomas I think you meant: What The Nothing?
@@Dranok1 mm m ok
&800).. hours izgfuzfsuxigipig
M. M. Mm.
M
I watched all of this for nothing.
Glad you got the answer :)
xD
Nothing has the property of being nothing. So nothing is something. 0 is 1. Therefore every binary code must exist.
I know people that go around prefacing a lot of things with the words..."Not for nothing".
I should force them to watch this ten times.
Devilofdoom In a binary code 0 is equivalent to off/no/false and 1 is equivalent to on/yes/true so it's false that 0 is 1.
1:00:06
there was no better explanation of nothing than just the way he said 'nothing'. he summed it up with the tone of his voice.
The discussion of 'nothing,' is really a discussion of how impossible it is to escape an idea once birthed.
7h7u77
Well.. They do say stupidity is contagious
You are able to describe "nothing" and here is my description: Nothing is the only thing whose only property is that it does not have another property. With this description, it should not be hard to determine if something is nothing. As to how the universe came into being, and whether it came from nothing, that is a different question.
This is a great way to describe it. The thing is, once you are able to attribute a property to it, it never WAS nothing, so it's easy to discount anything you find as 'not nothing' and be correct. Very good way to describe it.
Michael A. Stroupe
at 57:20 Neil actually puts his hand over Krauses mouth to shut him up.
So, If you actually watch this whole thing, is it me or does Krause and Tyson seem to be in competition for Eve Silversteins attention?
This is a great discussion...one of my favorites.
It is said, that infinity is not just an unreachable quantity, It is also an entity that is by its very nature unattainable, no matter what happens or how long it takes.
*Thus, it should not occur in the real physical universe, nor in any hypothetical multiverse.*
Personally, I think that an objective state of nothing relative to our objective experience of a something, is as impossible as infinity.
Thus, *it should not occur inside or even outside of this, our physical universe, nor any hypothetical multiverse*
Actually infinity does exist and can be reached. Infinity is a term to describe ridiculously large/small quantities. If you scale up the bases it can be achieved.
@@PeazAmaru
Hilberts Grand Hotel would beg to differ.
"Nothing is the absence of both anything and anywhere." -T. Franks ©TM
1 is infinitely greater than 0
Something is infinitely more than nothing
0 as the infinitesimally small is itself infinity, that's why it is a circle with no beginning and no end
but if there was 0, if there was nothing, how did 1 (something) come about
@@seeking7656 that's what the scientist don't want to talk about because it is proof that there is a possibility of divinity. Just watching this they have a severe confirmation bias wich discludes the divine so they simply hop around that by trying to make leaps in logic that say that some physical things can be included in the definition of nothing witch is fundementily the absence of any and all substance. They try to cherry-pick what amount of something can be contained by nothing. The other thing they result in doing is sending science to the level of the divine to compensate for their world view not including the notion of divinity.
The question children ask relentlessly is 'Why?"
Not "How?"
I think that says a lot.
Shaun Graham I lost you there, what does it says, could you pls expose your thought? There are also children asking "how" FYI. When a child deconstructs things, strokes petals before tearing them off, etc., he's not asking "why" but "how".
HawkFest RoG Children are new to the experience of being alive and full of questions about existence. They are more apt to wonder 'why' things are than 'how' do things work. Evolution is extremely interesting but not as interesting as 'Why are we here?'.
Shaun Graham
that's a wishful thinking. The "why's" happen much later than the "how's". As having abstract ideas and thinking also comes later, that's another fact. In fact most of the time "why's" can be translated into "how's", advertisers don't show the reality don't forget this.. I won't repeat my example, read it again if you don't remember : what would you think of this? When you talk to a child about religion, you tell him/her about the How's (and magic) behind, not about the why's nor abstract philosophies : he/she will be interested by the how's. The only "why" is around 1-3 year old : is it bad or good? e.g. does it make him/her cry or smile? That's all, all the rest is about the how.
+Shaun Graham
I have a bit of an issue with that. The "Why?" that young children ask isn't much different than "How?", "How?" is just a little more sophisticated. That is, it's not a matter of intelligence but a matter of knowledge. They see something that happened, and ask why that happened. They're told not to do something and ask why not. It's a very important question to ask, in my opinion. I've said many times that children are generally among the smartest people (and by correlation that stupid is a learned behavior) because they ask "Why?", and sitting within that little word is the recognition of not knowing, and recognizing that you don't know something is the first step toward leaning. I think it's a bit further to go from the "Why?" that children ask to "Why are we here?" than to "How?".
+Matt W It is the natural progression of humans, as children, to move from 'why' to 'how'. Why is the question that must be ask first - before comprehension - of principles and integrated systems, etc. - 'why' is the natural state of the young mind prior to knowledge. How can not be asked, except as a parrot, by someone unfamiliar with mathematical and scientific processes, even rudimentary ones. It is only as people 'mature' that they are interested in such things as being, as you put it "...a little more sophisticated." The problem of the modern scientific mind in a nutshell. Thanks for playing.
My own personal experience of nothing was under the effect of general aenesthetics. Everything just went boom! to nothing in an instant and suddenly any concousness of time, space or whatever just ceased to be, until I woke up and then everythng came back into existence. To be aware of that gap in the perception of self was both reasuring and scary at the same time. Of course this is an account from the point of view of the observer. Where was my conciousness gone? To me it raised personal questions as if this concept of nothingness is what our destiny, then this moment of somethingness is quite more relevant. Sorry, I know this is far from being a scientific view of what nothing is. Just an account from a normal human being that slept.
I understand. It is so easy to believe that we come from nothing and that we go into nothing if you think that when we sleep for most of our sleep we are not self aware at all. It is actually comforting to think that.
now all you need to define is that Biblical chapter in Genesis !
Ii7i8iiiii88😮😮9o9óo99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999😊⁹ ook ook i 1:53:59 nu 6h
An unpopular view, but it almost seems as if consciousness itself, as we define it, may be an operative function of cellular activity.
Or at the very least neurological activity that's codependent, theoretically, on the body's anatomic structural integrity. --- Just a whimsical thought.
@hitogokochi
Actually Hito, there is something _physical_ about literally everything you've said. -- I think what you were probably trying to hilight was the _interpretation_ of those senses.
I never insinuated that consciousness was physical, I was saying how the experience could very well be a byproduct of multi-cellular activity working as one(body). -- Also, there is no unified theory on what consciousness even is.
It's as unique as our genetics themselves(ancestral experience). -- And lo and behold, anything that has some merit of consciousness; ie life, is always accompanied by complex cellular activity.
After years of pondering this -- including sharing a stance similar to yours at one point, this is probably not coincidental. The cellular relationship that makes up our anatomy.
Nothing is the non area non reality not existing outside of ours or any given universe, but nothing can be found everywhere within our universe as well, it exists everywhere measured smaller than the Plank length. Any measurement, even within matter, smaller than the Plank length will contain nothing.
I can't believe the Higgs-Boson was discovered more than 8 years ago.
10 actualy ;)
could we say that there's nothing in our mind and yet we get to have thoughts out of nothing?
Eve was literally the most brilliant person on the stage. Her description of the problem was incredible.
Agreed.
I agree with you, The problem is they go so fast on their explanations and interpretations
that they're extremely confusing to most people, Get it? Welcome to the
circus publishing blend of religion, metaphysics, philosophy, and
science,, all trying to make scientific sense out of nothing which is
something. This is Infinite propoganda, and/or infinite confusion, and
infinite money from all this mass confusion!!!!! ......+picklesnorf101
She said that geometries like a simple energy line, or a sting basically become non geometric and non dimensional at a small enough size, so it's relationship to our reality and a zero geometric reality is entirely different that our finite perception of reality . Energy still exists there but in a different form because this form is non geometric and super syymetrically infinite, and this super syymetrically infinite system must always exist if any finite to infinite equation is to succeed rationally and explain the infinite.... That was your Mr. Spock quote for today
CRAZY INSANE VIDEOS What's odd in this whole chit-chat about nothingness, is that they try to put the Universe at our level of comprehension, while also trying to be scientifically rational: it just can't happen without confusing contradictions. Simple: if we should consider very very small stuff as "nothing" so that we understand whatever, than why try to rationalize some constitutive nature of such nothingness? The fact of trying to insinuate nothingness while it's actually not true, that's what's utterly confusing, it doesn't help at all in understanding whatever they babble between each others. I prefer to try grasping the very small (or huge) or uncertain nature of things instead of this.
BTW, that journalist is again trying to reinterpret the Bible scriptures so that it fits current science. It's ridiculous (now "nothing" = "chaos".. But what is chaos? Some level of misunderstanding? lol). If one wants to look at science seriously, he should get rid of the Bible while doing so. If believing in God only involves filling some intellectual/scientific gaps and nothing else, then such weak God would mean nothing, if not to be against human evolution since he would only thrive upon our ignorance and intellectual weaknesses.
its is on the level of anyone's comprehension if the proper words are chosen to understand it in a physical sense without geometry. It is a piece of cake to understand it!!! Give me $500 and I'll send you my masterpiece paper on it, far better than richard gott and his time travel stunt, or krauss and his half baked explanations, or eve and her intellectual (I'm a genius and your not) showmanship, or Holt on his endless religious denials. NO GODS REQUIRED!!!! What a comedy of confusing errors life is for the fallen elites and their borg counterparts. Q from star trek must be eternally laughing his arse off.
"It's a show about nothing"
"nothing?"
"nothing"
"well it must be about something"
"no, it's about nothing"
Seinfeld, lol. I watched this whole thing and was interested in all of their opinions on what nothing is but if you just skip around, you hear the word "nothing" every time you skip almost, it's ridiculous how much time they spent arguing what nothing is, but I understand why
@@CapitalJ2 He should have said "yes, it is about nothing" as nothing is the subject, the 'something' "
Seinfeld is love
Yeah I understand way too it's because they're a bunch of professional bullshitters hosted by the grandmaster bullshitter of all time douche bag and charlatan Tyson
@@alexanderkarl4025 - man, what is your problem ? and what, in your mind, makes tyson a "douche bag" and "charlatan" ?
Like Salsa..
I don't know if this is a stupid question or not but I have to ask. If there ever was absolutely nothing wouldn't that have meant that there was absolutely no potential for anything all? I have seen various physicists trying to get around that part of a theory like the Big Bang, you know, where did the initial quantum singularity come from and the response is usually in a question, this one, why did it have to come from anywhere?
So back to my question, it has me wondering if there's such a thing as negative potential or something else that could explain absolute nothingness producing a Universe or a singularity.....I'm under the impression that there has to be potential in order for anything to happen.
trytip x.
no man, that's not what I mean. "Nothing" can't be described as something which came from anywhere. But, I enjoyed your word picture painting and understand.
I used to read theories and hear scientists say, that before the big bang is a nonsensical question as there was no "before" and there was no "where" because all space and time were created after the big bang event.
now there's brane theory and multiverse and an oscillating bang/crunch theory and now a recent new twist on that which proposes that in an ever expanding Universe the end is like the beginning, such a low entropy state that somehow another big bang happens and it begins again.
there's a lot of theories these days. I think it might be helpful to start a process of elimination.
so, with that in mind, the original Big Bang theory is either valid and worth further consideration or its not.
which is why I ask, without referencing another dimension or any force or fluctuation, in a state devoid of any source, force, quality, quantity, area,volume, in other words, without description by comparison, absolute Nothingness.
could it have Potential?
My pea brain tells me no.
without any potential,
can anything happen?
again, pea brain says no.
if that is true, the Big Bang as I understand it never happened because it couldn't have.
But, if there is something called Negative Potential which I don't know about, then "Nothing" would have an infinite amount of it.
I'm trying to remember my math from almost fifty years ago, there are imaginary numbers which are real useful, negative numbers add up.
but I left school at fifteen years old almost fifty years ago and so, all I really have is my imagination which exists devoid of an education....like the initial quantum singularity in its void and if I can gain some input somewhere somehow, that one brain cell is going to bang and I could reach enlightenment.
So tell me please, is there Negative Potential which could in some convoluted mind bending way produce a change in state?
Peter K. Yes you have assumed correctly. However, The thing before The BIg Bang is known as the "Primordial Fireball". All the matter in the Universe crushed down into the size smaller than an atom. Than in an instant EXPLODES! How and Why? It was and is GOD's "intellectual design" and His creation of the Heavens and Earth. HE is the Alpha and Omega. HE is the something from which it all began. HE is the one in control and HE is the giver of Eternal Life after death. We are living the final days before the Thousand Years as prophesied in the book of Revelations. Only through HIM!! NOTHING creates NOTHING! GOD will destroy the Earth and all Evil afterwards, re-create Earth for HIS kingdom, Heaven on Earth, the third Earth age to come. Amen.
"If there ever was absolutely nothing wouldn't that have meant that there was absolutely no potential for anything all?"
The answer to that is, evidently, no. Because we definitely have "something". Even appealing to a god doesn't stop the fact that something will have had to have come from nothing at some point.
@@paulnash3747 I find cleaning your keyboard regularly solves that silly caps problem. Unfortunately, it doesn't fix the more fundamental one.
@@paulnash3747 WHY? Oh why did He make the earth, mankind then promise to destroy them? Why?
I read alot of comments knocking how obnoxious Tyson was in this video, But in his defense he always does his best to keep everyone in the loop who may not pick up on something or whom needs a guide. Yes for more advanced minds it can ne annoying but educating amateurs about science does alot more for science. Tyson is always teaching that's makes him unique and sympathetic towards all listeners for the better of science moving foward.
I think his a great host tbh at least he knows deply about what is debating about versus 90% of podcasts hosts nowadays...
The lack of attention on Eastern philosophy, which has plenty to say on Nothingness, is quite irritating. What Seife mentioned about nothingness and infinity being quite similar actually has some merit. Kurt Vonnegut once said, "Everything is nothing with a twist" and Western philosophers such as Alan Watts have elaborated on this notion (using his knowledge of both science and Eastern philosophy). In Eastern philosophy, there is this notion that there can't be something without nothingness because a Something is only known and differentiated by Nothingness. There is a symbiotic relationship between something and nothing that cannot be conceived if one or the other did not "exist". Science and philosophy are very complementary fields and it's this one-track minded fascination that one or the other must be the correct description of reality really limits philosophers and scientists alike. This discussion would have been a lot more fruitful if there wasn't constant bickering over whether philosophy or science is better. Unfortunately,this panel seemed more about ego than a love for knowledge. Both fields intellectually observe the same set of questions in different ways. Different does not mean wrong.
There was brief mention of the idea the sum of energies in the universe is zero. I'd say: The universe is just really complicated nothing..
Wow, you said exactly what I was thinking about them omitting Eastern philosophy which dates earlier than their philosophers. "The DAO that can be expressed
is not the eternal DAO.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal name.
“Non-existence” I call the beginning of Heaven and Earth.
“Existence” I call the mother of individual beings.
Therefore does the direction towards non-existence
lead to the sight of the miraculous essence,
the direction towards existence
to the sight of spatial limitations.
Both are one in origin
and different only in name.
In its unity it is called the secret.
The secret’s still deeper secret
is the gateway through which all miracles emerge."
And for some reason I also thought of the wisdom of Kurt Vonnegut while watching this.
So glad to see Watts and eastern philosophy mentioned here. Watts’s lecture on nothingness makes more sense to me than any of these guys. The best explanation here was that nothing and infinity are two sides of the same coin, an analogy that Watts himself probably would have used.
Nonwestern Nothingness is based on Noncommutative Phase logic as Eddie Oshins realized. He was a quantum physicists working at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and he also taught Wing Chun Neigong (internal martial arts).
@@anyariv Where did you get your rendering of the Tao Te Ching? Is it your own or some on else's? It is a very interesting take.
My question is if nothingness also means no laws, what is there to prevent something coming from nothing?
That's a clever point.
It's not a clever point, you're essentially saying "Well what is stopping this balloon from floating? Nothing is holding it down" What's stopping the balloon from floating is the balloons own non-existence.
Heidi's poem (4:07):
Nothing speaks volumes
Imprisoned dreams jailed for ever
Forgiveness weeps
No tears are released
Silence begs for ease
Anger has no hope
Indifference rejoices
While Nothing holds court with the jesters of Time
Nothing waits, and waits.
Thank you for posting these. I was wondering though if the 2001-2010 debates were taped as well, and if they will ever be available to view?
Ubicado buj
U 7ii7iuiiuuuiijuiiii7inn9
51:00 English is not the correct language to speak when talking about physics. No human language (English, Spanish, Greek, Aramaic) are precise enough for these topics.
You can describe physics with language, so long as you understand that the description is not precise.
Only mathematics can describe physics precisely, and even then, we aren't really sure exactly HOW precise we are being.
No one could precisely describe an orbit until the Calculus was invented. I think that there is another, as yet to be invented mathematics which will help us more precisely describe the world, especially quantum effects.
TheGodEmperorofMankind
I didn't say language was useless. I said it is not precise.
When teaching math. you don't need to be that precise.
TheGodEmperorofMankind
Okay, I think you misunderstand. I am saying that these things they describe sound crazy to us laymen because we can't precisely understand what they are describing.
People become confused when they hear these things because they think that what is being described is exactly what is happening.
I am saying it isn't true. They laymen (like you and me) need to understand what the physicists describe in English isn't EXACTLY what is taking place.
I provided a time stamp with my comment to provide the context for which my comment is meant. Go and watch at about 51:00. Just click the time stamp, it will take you right there.
It is also important to note that many of these ideas still only exist as math. We have mathematical models and predictions, but observation of things, like inflation fields, are impossible with our current limitations.
Andrew Price
But those limitations are being expanded every day.
We can do things today that blow the minds of people from just 5 years ago. Imagine what someone from 50 years ago (1966) would think. What will we be doing 50 years from now?
but wuns I get to the end of my twelve flingers and ateteen toes my math skills varnish witch leafs me ownlie my inglish wif witch too solvent the great miniseries of the Univers.
Problem with "nothing" is that it's impossible to visualize. Even when trying to visualize nothing, you embed it in something to visualize it.
And there is the solution to the riddle. Not every word makes sense. "Nothing" is one of those that do not, at least not if used as a negation to the totality of existence.
possibly the one event that I find myself applauding in the privacy of my own home.
43:17 "It's not heavy, they're my universes." lol that deserved a bigger laugh. (He's not heavy, he's my brother.)
A few interesting points to think about, but not a satisfying talk.
The philosophical question is the interesting one. Krauss should have expanded on why it is necessarily a physical question.
Claiming that nothing exists is logically the same as claiming non-existence exists... It's an obvious contradiction, and it should be understood as such. The concept 'nothing' is only ever meaningful in the context of a more fundamental level of existence. The amusing comment above, "I watched all this for nothing" is only meaningful because it is understood in the wider context of our motivations and purposes for doing things. That we do things, and usually have reasons for doing whatever we do, is the context that makes doing something for no reason a meaningful possibility. We are in effect saying that, in this particular case, we had no reason for what we did. The particular case is meaningful only in the wider context that we do things, and we usually do them with some purpose or result in mind. In other words, 'nothing' doesn't have a meaning on its own.
Excellent point! My first thought when this showed up in my recommended was that this video’s title itself is a contradiction.
Nothing lasts forever.
Underrated comment
For me, nothingness equates to a form of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. You can either know the exact location of a particle or the exact velocity of it. As you approach one, the other becomes more and more uncertain.
Similarly, as you approach nothingness, it doesn't remain nothingness, it becomes something! And then you aren't really discussing nothing!
Sagar Wadhwa is this a stolen idea/definition or did u come up with it years and years ago? because if not stolen, that's a great way to put it.
A particle is something and how can a “you” which is something approach nothingness ? You’re a genius
I wished that Tyson would STOP interrupting these guys PLEASE LET THEM FINISHED!
The existence of nothing is a contradiction, nothing is non-existence. I think maybe a better way to say this is does the idea of 'nothing' make sense in a physical universe. This might have allowed the discussion to be a bit more fruitful. At the end I must say I did not feel that there was any real progress towards answering the question.
Kjţ0
Ğ
Ň
I agree with you. Nothing is not consistent therm that could be explored and discussed with eventual material outcome and conclusion,
Agreed, the discussion went off-topic several times, but as Gott asserted (paraphrasing), "Nothing does not exist, so there's 'nothing' to talk about." In all fairness, there's really no way to have an argument for nothingness without discussing what is. It cannot be measured but only assumed by "gaps" in the physical world.
Funny thing about this is that if you think about it "nothing" exists by not existing. When you ask why is there something rather than nothing, you're agreeing that something exists, and nothing doesn't exist, but by it's own definition nothingness is non-existent, so for nothing "to be" it would have to not be.
@@LilyoProductionsfinally. I finally found someone saying what Ive been saying.
To me nothing is an incredibly unstable force that holds together everything that is about to be created
thats something not nothing
@@zachariahtuttle3543 true but I can’t see that nothing could ever be truly nothing
How has Kraus written a book about nothing without knowing zero arrived with the Babylonians from India (along with 'Arabic' numerals), founded in Buddhist ideas of emptiness? Buddhists hold that existence is eternal also - not just some remote tribe, but one of the worlds major religions!
Hilarious at 39:57 Professor Gott _"is there a big black thing back here?"_ and Neil deGrasse Tyson standing behind him flexing..lol
All that amassed knowledge and some of them don't have enough sense to hold the mic at an optimum distance.
Yup... SUPER ANNOYING!
Not only that, most of the people dont have the ability to think if croud can hear them well. I would also want to add another thing to this topic, most of the time we have no interaction with the microphone and most of them have different specifications, some work perfectly when they are close some work perfectly when they are little further. Imho we should not complain about that and just enjoy the ride gathering all that awsome knowledge they give us.
So is this what you say when you are watching people smarter than you? Don't be mad bro.
lol
G
That is why we should all run from this utube.
Nothing = Everything. There is no beginning, infinity is always there. One cannot say `When did infinity begin`? There`s always something before something, and always something after anything. Everything = nothing. Infinity and all it contains is forever!
Nothing by definition doesn't exist so that's why there's something. Done.
+Mat Lord If nothing doesn't exist then something doesn't exist either. And that's a paradox, as is your sentence.
+Mat Lord I agree, but would reword: Something exists, therefore an existence of nothing is an impossibility.
Since something exists, then you might say that nothing doesn't exist since something is filling the nothingness. But to say that it is an impossibility is wrong.
+Norman The fact something exists does not imply nothing does. Ok, it just doesn't follow. Saying the universe is expanding into nothing is totally meaningless, nothing can't be expanded into because it's not there... In every case you attempt to posit the existence of nothing, you find you can't do it, because the word is defined as something that doesn't exist. So it's impossible to ever talk meaningfully about an existent nothingness, it would be like asking "how heavy does purple smell like?" It's just nonsense.
I just said how the fact that something exists implies that nothing does. You can't have something unless there was nothing first, therefore it has existed and therefore it can exist. Saying that the universe is expanding into nothing is not meaningless, since its taking up the space that nothing occupied, and is filling it with something, in this case the somethingness of our universe.
FRIENDS, Indian mathematicians had zero (nothing) for thousands of years - why are they there deleting half of humanity in this talk and thus delegitimising the capital of humans by virtue that they were not from Greece. I bet the Greeks borrowed from the Indian people and Egypt which too borrowed form India hence their surge in Greek science/ culture
Neil's constant interruptions and attempts at being cutesy and funny are madly annoying. Rather than being elucidating, he repeatedly arrested the progression of the discussion and the talking points that participants were trying to expand upon. Lawrence is only a little less guilty of this but his manifest smugness is very off-putting. They both are mega vainglorious and simply love to hear themselves talk. Still, it managed to be a very interesting discussion but could have been much more so with a host who was more interested in facilitating rather than entertaining.
gregory s I was going to say something very similar but I think you’ve summed it up quite well. The only thing I’d add, is how interesting it was that Lawrence called Neil out for interrupting in his very first chance to talk! Then he expresses the expectation of being interrupted later in the discussion. Some foreshadowing of sorts?
How can Jim Holt, with a straight face, deny to Lawrence Krauss that using the word "Why" implies intentionality, when it absolutely does? "How" is a much better question to ask of something that may not have had a reason to exist. It's ironic that Holt makes a jab at Krauss earlier in the program that scientists should keep philosophers around to show them how to use words properly.
Perhaps Holt feels threatened by the superior relevance of "How in there something rather than nothing?" instead of "Why?" because the title of his book utilizes the latter.
I agree. I believe Holt shouldn't ask WHY he should nail me, but HOW he should nail me. Followed by WHEN.
How can Krauss claim that Something can come from NOTHING when Nothing cannot be PROVEN given that if it were proven in a lab, that is not nothing already ?
English allows ambiguity and thats why there are many definitions of Nothing, Zero, infinity etc.
because you and many others misunderstand him. He means, that there is NO nothing, nothing simply doesnt exist. What he says is that what people _think_ of nothing is actually something.
So we all agree that Krauss should have explained clearer? Did he failed in communication?
Debby Johnson Theoretical physics doesn't take place in a lab. It's mathematics.
***** Up your arse? Is that where's it's hidden? Deep deep inside you?
The same place you just pulled that nonsense from?
***** Can you demonstrate in some way that we have 'evolved into knowledge' we already had? I have a suspicion that you're not a fan of the burden of proof - but we'll see.
If the universe always existed then how do we reach this present from an infinite past?
You cant.... why would you want to? You wanna witness creation LMAO
@@TheLastOutlaw-KTS I never did say that I would want to. What blows my mind the most is the ancient Greeks. If there was no "Zero" then what would they call 1 minus 1?
WHY WOULD there be NOTHING rather than something?
reality,we see through our senses... ie.. w see reality as PER our senses.as to what reality is, remains a mystery. . existence of anything ,is phenomenal... inherent existence ,is a fiction. nothing exists INHERENTLY.. all is interlinked and interconnected,nothing can or do exist apart and alone.. (Buddha and also Einstein)
This is an interesting comment & I try to expain exactly this to people & I'm suprised at those who can't grasp it. It's nothing more than an expansion of the "tree falling in the woods". The sound is produced by our senses.So with that I ask, if life wasn't arround to observe the universe, would it exsist?
A good way to consider the question. Maybe there is no difference, infinity and zero have many common properties. According to Lawrence you need 'nothing' to get the 'something' really it seems to be the classic chicken and egg question, which came first. And remember we don't actually know which way 'time' goes!!
CircularLogic The sound is not produced by our senses but by vibrations of the atmosphere given off by the tree falling. The noise we here is a subjective experience but the sound waves would exist were we there or not, in short the tree doe make a sound when it falls even if no one hears it
Victor Higgins "Sound" is humans short way of saying " My ear drums are vibrating". The falling tree may vibrate the air when it falls,but those vibrations will only be called a sound if those vibrations vibrate a human ear drum.
I watched the religious version of this debate. They announced 5 different theists. The first guy gave his opening remark. He said, "Why are we here? God." Everyone agreed and the talk was over. It was magical. Total time, about 1.5 minutes.
+brigham2250 I wanna see that shit:)))
+ovidiu dans I will pay for it:)))
Lol
+brigham2250 PISH TOSH.
Lol
I would have liked it if Charles Seife got the chance to speak without being interrupted. Was still an awesome discussion though : )
51:00 i just want to go back to the guy talking about the glass universe XD
Lawrence's idea of nothing is more like the idea of everything. So in his representation of the birth of the universe is more like a universe out of everything than a universe out of nothing.
When Krauss says "nothing," he means nothing, not an “all” that is somehow equivalent to nothing. I suspect that you're describing what DeGrasse allowed you to hear. His approach to "moderating" was both heavy-handed and clearly favoured the journalists and "science writers" on the panels over the three actual physicists. If I were Krauss, Gott or Silverstein, I'd start refusing DeGrasse's calls after manipulative non-sense like this.
1:28:24 turn down for what.
Somebody should make the video.
Thanks Neil. Eva (especially) and then J. Richard and Charles were superb! Especially Eva who, it seems, talked exclusively about what she was asked about in an intriguing vernacular. I got a peek into her world! Jim and Lawrence were less interesting as they seem to color their intellectual arguments by arguing. Geez.
Possibly the greatest scientist alive open minded pragmatic
“Nothing. Such a useful word, isn’t it? It can mean anything and everything.” - Mary Poppins
thermo
Mary Poppins. Popped it right in'er.
1:41:35 Can we teleport specially prepared quantum mechanical states faster then the speed of light?
"Nothing and infinity are two sides of the same coin" :)
I respectfully disagree. Nothing is the absence of something less than zero not even a vacuum(sort of); where as infinity is something up to no one knows where it ends.
@@wesb8159 The absence of something is a simplistic view of zero.....I’d suggest reading “The Book of Nothing” by John D. Barrow. It’s really a great read
@@wesb8159 a blackhole appears to be nothing and infinite things
Zero means everything. Nothing doesn't exist .
Neil’s amazing. His enthusiasm and love for others shines like a beacon. Love that man.
He's an actor, he's not even a scientist.
He spent more time interupting than contributing.
He's the host who's supposed to simplify everything. I think that came with the job - oversimplification
why are the Sound Quality is very Low ? To make the ads sound nice & Loud ?
I love neil's polite answer to that person suggesting a theological perspective on what made the multiverse.
@1:21:04 "Back up and say something else."
That was beautiful.
You can not speak of what is not. The point being, as soon as you speak of nothing you give it substance. However, you only give it substance as a concept. Nothing is simply the absence of something, but nothing itself is something because we have conceptualized it as such. You are struggling to find the right answer when you are asking the wrong question. As far as the problem of something coming from nothing. I believe everything is cyclical. Some things appear to be linear depending on your perspective, but in reality there is no beginning or end. The life cycle of the universe is as infinite as the circumference of a circle. The point at which the universe seems to be nothing is merely the point as which the universe appears to be as close to our concept of nothing as we can imagine. It seems to me that we are just struggling to perceive different states of the same thing. The matter is always there, the antimatter is always there, everything is always there. You`re dealing with something that`s infinitely small, infinitely large, infinitely old, and infinitely young all at the same time. The human brain is wired to make sense of everything, but this is a problem that will never make sense in any traditional sense of the world. I think the symbol for infinity is the closest we can get to a physical representation of the universe. The intersection is a massive black hole. The seed of the big bang. Gravity makes the universe expand outward just as it makes it contract inward. It`s simply a fluctuation of pressure. As for what exists outside of this universe, it could be something, but I think as far as we should be concerned it`s nothing. If the universe encompasses everything we know, anything outside of it is the literal definition of nothing until we can prove otherwise.
Nice. These are some of the thoughts I thought too, especially from the beginning.
John Galliah Concepts have no substance though. IMO, it's easy to speak of what is not. The expression "The absence of all properties" is a good way to do so as it makes it clear that any kind of manifestation of anything will be a violation of the concept - which would rule out everything Lawrence talks about as candidates for nothing.
I completely agree with what you say about a cyclical nature though. As far as I can tell, it's a logical contradiction to claim otherwise under any worldview to say that something fundamentally "began"(from nothing) and as actual infinite pasts wouldn't explain anything in the first place, we're pretty much left with a finite nature that cycles through a finite set of states(as a consequence of its finite nature there must be a finite set of states - or at least a finite set of states that approximates nature if nature is inherently analogue(but still finite)).
_"As for what exists outside of this universe, it could be something, but I think as far as we should be concerned it`s nothing."_
Well, they would be indistinguishable, but I think you're in danger of misusing the word "universe" there as the vocabulary around multiverses, omniverses, metaverses etc is hopelessly confused. I prefer the "Universe=the sum of everything that exists" definition and describe any limitations on knowledge in epistemic terms rather than in terms of ontology. I feel I have good reasons to not care about things I can never know, even in theory, and I'm happy to adopt the default position of nonexistence for all existential claims, which pretty much solves the issue of parts of nature that might be fundamentally inaccessible to us and doesn't do damage to our interest in figuring out as much as possible about the things we can access.
John Galliah Hey Guy, You made sense in your statement up to the point of where you say it boils down to nothing at all. Science says that it must always boil down to absolute zero kelvin coldness along with its eternal effects. Absolute zero cannot dissaper entirely. In other words, absolute zero's effects never dissapear into magic goo, supernatural spagetti monsters agents, or any other silly BS nonsense.......
John Galliah
"excellent" internet philosophy I guess
nothingness in its proper definition is nothing at all to make anything with. Theists and metaphysicians (Theists in disguise) Play endless mind games with that word. The was the monkey BS report for today. Amen
Love these discussions. My wish is that that audio could be adjusted to the different speakers, especially for Neil, his volume is way too high. No disrespect to him or what he has to say, brilliant man. For 2014 I hope the audio is tested before recording that way we can hear what everyone has to say.
agreed, they need a more experienced live audio mixer, and a better trained cameraman as well while we are at it.... :))
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmm
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmm
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm MLK mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmommmmmmmmmomommmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Because we invent the universe based on perceptions, language, mathematics, and technology we invent therefore reflecting our limitations.
Exactly... But most Academics are too dense in there ego driven narcissism to even realize it. lol
@@Art_Travel_and_Hobbys not really lol ur so special. so deep LOOOL
@@DankBucketYT Ha! 😁
tal cual. la capacidad de conocer esta limitada por los instrumentos con los que se percibe. continúan digitalizando la realidad que es continua, solo porque el instrumento para percibirla lo es ( la mente ) wtf? es como pixelar un circulo o una esfera....
@Jonathan Wheeler science is way underfunded on an non-institutional level. What do you expect? If the big tech companies where into pure science, they'd all have their individual LHC.
First of all “nothing” does not exist outside of our imagination. The universe we live in does not contain “nothing”. Zero is different from nothing.
Zero is a mathematical number: There are three numbers: 1, zero and imaginary number (square root of -1).
Mathematics has its universe and is basically the creation (or discovery) of us, humans, in order to help us, give us a tool to better understand the nature (another word for the universe) in which we live in. Mathematics is derived from language and is based on rules of logic, which is ingrained in our mind. The common area of roots of mathematics and the nature is the structure of brain (which is a part of nature) and gives us the ability to communicate in languages.
We can imagine “nothing” as we can imagine zero but cannot experimentally find “nothing”.
There’s no more to be said about nothing and nothingness.
Neil is too impatient to be a host. It gets irritating when he breaks the flow
Sooooo true!!
He is so passionate about his area of expertise and is keen to get his points out. That's why I love this guy
@@SamSpadeLives extreme passion can become an obstruction in the reception
I like the guy, but yea he keeps interrupting every second. Its like hes he's listening to interrupt. I think Neil likes the sound of his own voice.
This debate is great! But also I think they would have benefited from having a mathematician (particularly a logician or a set theorist) on the panel as well as a neuroscientist. A mathematician would have been concern of the formal definitions of zero and nothingness as they play a fundamental role in set theory (and in mathematics in general) and a neuroscientist might stir the debate to consciousness, the possibility of emptiness of thought and how we create those concepts in our brains. It seems to me that nowadays the fields of science have grown apart from each other so much that there is not enough interdisciplinary talk between the different ramifications of science. It seems very important to me to bring them back together as much as we can because in the end all of the different fields are trying to discover the mysteries of nature. I understand there is a vast knowledge in each field and the language each field uses is only understood by experts on that field, but we have to keep open the possibility for a connection between them because nature is a whole interconnected system and not separate individual parts that don't influence each other. The brain is influenced by electrochemical reactions as well as thermal energy and somehow this creates consciousness. Consciousness is the only way by which we can create ideas, concepts and formal mathematical definitions which are bound by the language that we use to express them (which actually vary between different languages and cultures). From the concepts we create (particularly mathematical) physics is developed which of course at a greater scale gives rise to chemistry, then biology, then organisms, societies of organisms all the way up to galaxies and the universe itself. And trying to understand the universe brings us back to the concepts we use to define it which again are tied to how we think those concepts.
I think they would have benefited from having about half the number of people they had. three of the guys were chomping at the bit to speak anytime anyone else was speaking, and two of them would not speak until invited. I couldn't help but spend the whole time with a countdown in the background on who was currently excluded the longest
I have watched and rewatched this more times than I can count. It is the most interesting question in the universe to me. I wish someone would have entered this into the conversation. No matter what, you can keep asking the question 'what created the universe' forever. This is because there will always be a cause and effect in our human brains confined to the 3rd dimension. We can not conceive of nothingness and the concept of something existing without a creation. You could say quantum fluctuations created the universe. But ok, so, you could also ask the question well, where did the quantum fluctuations come from? You can say it came from a higher dimensional energy source or something. Then you would be like, ok, what made the HD energy? The non-Euclidean geometry spiders? Oh shit, well where did those come from? The infinity square? OK....cool. cool cool. You can never answer the question as long as there is something happening. Nothingness is nothing. No physics. no Vacuum, no something happening. You have to arrive at the conclusion that since the universe does indeed exists, that question can not be answered without nothingness being involved eventually. So, not only does true nothingness exist, existence definitely came from it.
DID THE lADY EVER SPEAK?
Yes she did. She was just more introverted than the others
Whenever I think we discovered total emptiness, void, we still find some kind of existence, I conjecture that we will never find true nothingness, therefore nothingness does not exist. But then again the non-existence of nonexistence is non existence per definition, therefore proving that non-existence exists at least in one form ...
On the other hand if true nothingness is proven to exist then there would be no need for the above explanation.
Either way the paradox : nothing exists : is verified.
Im not that smart, but my view in this would be... that nothing is something and that something is defined by nothing in order for us to try and comprehed "nothing" not the word, and the thing in itself.
28:49 Space is the consequence of gravity. We do not know if space exists without a gravitational region overlapping it(space).
Tyson and Krauss destroyed this debate. I am so tired of hearing Neil's stupid chuckle. He interrupts 90% of the time to make himself laugh. Nothing wrong with comedy, but after watching a handful of these debates, I can safely say I left just slightly more informed than when I walked in.
Then don't watch.
You do understand that, in order to form an opinion one way or another, a person must first subject themselves.
No - you idiot.
I was laughing all the time Niel used to chuckle! enjoyed your comment! LOL xd
my thought, too. those moments when he just interrupted and chuckled instead of discussing the topic or let those people debate around the topic.... so annoying.
Will Neil deGrasse and Lawrence Krauss let others talk uninterrupted . Would have been a good discussion if they had just shut up when the rest of the panelists were talking.
I think this discussion is the one of the best ever in any science channels
Thank you all for such an amazing talk and sharing with us..I am a student of physics and do study philosophy.I was stumbled at this question nothingness is sth so big and out of thought if you think and you keep God out of this question ..it was so amazing
This channel should have WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than 64k subscribers. LEARN SOMETHING, PEOPLE!!!!!
+TheLivingfreekshow No one is as good as you, son.
It's unfortunate the cats get more views
I learned about nothing
lol
I learned nothing
With reference to the second question from the audience, the lack of a definite article in Hebrew is not the same thing as in English when we have an indefinite article. One might say that in Hebrew there is a "nothing" state with neither definite article, which Hebrew has, nor indefinite article, which it does not have but is not necessarily implied by the lack of the definite article. So the lack of a definite article, with which we would translate "the beginning", does not directly point to inserting an indefinite article in English; and further, the lack of a Hebrew definite article can actually indicate a stronger definiteness than having a definite article in English. Thus "nothing" can be more definite than something, in terms of Hebrew grammar translating into English.
Depends on how you define Nothing. Zero is nothing but it is something. Is nothing between the gaps? Nope that's space. Is space nothing? Sure. I learned its not nothing enough. So what is further than space time (our known universe). Nothing is just escaping our expanding universe. It is a concept. Someday we will define a nothing that we need to make sense of the universe just like when we defined zero. Since we are in 4D, TXYZ, we cant go back in T due to thermodynamics, I can define reverse T travel as going to nothing. Also gong to T too far forward also delivers, nothing. Escaping the universe. Ripping through the universe is just that. And you need the tools of outside the universe to do this.
I wonder sometimes how physicists can have such a theistic view of what god might be
I'm no scientist, but here's a question. If time slows down as you get closer to strong gravity, black holes etc (Interstellar), it should hold good that it speeds up as a point in space is subject to lesser and lesser gravity. If you have a point in space where there is absolutely nothing all over, time should speed up to infinity? Which would mean that if you have nothing, time moves so fast that at that point, it is undetectable until there is no more nothing in that space. Which means that nothing can not exist?
The theory is called relativity because it's relative to the observer. So if you were near a strong gravitational well (interstellar) relative to somebody on earth their time would be slowing down but relative to them their time is normal. And if they're in an Inertial reference frame there is no way to tell which one slower which ones faster. What time is it just depended on gravity that is one thing that affects time dilation is also dependent on speed if you're moving near the speed of light time will slow down relative to somebody stationary. If you send a clock near the speed of light, it will be slower then one here on earth.
+Aaron Weymouth ok relativity right. Time then is no longer absolute of course. Would the same apply to distances too or any of the dimensions. I'm just playing with the idea. Which I guess can extend to the existence everything being relative even "nothing". To me there's nothing outside of what I can perceive.
+Arun Ramakrishnan right, it's kind of hard. To try to talk about "nothing", which we have no experience or experimental evidence haha. Yeah distances could be relativistic as well. Look up the muon experiment. The gist of it is since the particle is moving so close to the speed of light the distance that it travels relative to it contracts but relative to us it is the same distance it's really cool because it changes relative to the observer it's too long to explain over this but just look up a video on it super cool
Yeah I remember vaguely reading about it. Thanks I'll definitely look it up!
All of them keep interrupting each other... I find Lawrence Krauss is especially rude.
For smart people they argue like children. .
Other than that the debate is interesting
+Trent Gorringe i think theyre just get super excited, heck I would too. This is a passion and life for these guys
Opus got it right. Read Neil's autobiography, he touches upon exactly this "issue" of being too excited when debating something that is just too damn interesting.
Lawrence, in my opinion, is the most qualified for this debate so its no wonder he would want to interrupt when he could. He is, afterall, one of the first people to suggest dark energy. The energy of nothing.
EnemyTortoise 15 I don't know, he seems unprepared to discuss the topic, and missed the point few times. Jim Holt rightly corrected him about his idea of "space-time popping into existence".
who is still watching 2019
2020 after the plague during the riots
"In the void is only virtue. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness."
-Miyamoto Musashi-
Richard Gott is super impressive!
He rambles though and wastes floor time. :/
47:25 Lawrence signalling to Neil, “Get this old dude to stop rambling and move on”...and Neil jumps on it right away 😂
Dark Matter Neil is Lawrence’s Bitch, because they’re both atheists and Neil is star struck by Lawrence because Lawrence fearlessly shouts to the world that there’s not a God, where-as Neil still gives God some probability around certain people in order to stay in the mainstream, instead being relegated to a small corner like Lawrence. Neil actually feels guilt about his own hypocrisy. Lawrence has no hypocrisy therefore he has no guilt, but he’s hated by most of the world, where-as Neil is loved by most of the world, and in some countries has ‘rockstar’ status that Lawrence will never even experience from the people who agree with him.
@@michaelmoore8680 one correction Neil is not atheist. He is agnostic.
@@mrpearson1230 he needs more than one correction. Lol.
Nah, Tyson is def an atheist. He is too sensible for that
Einstein was ones asked, what is infinite? He said univarse and human stupidity
You have to love NGT for adding so much energy to what would normally be a very boring conversation. He has an ability to notice the discussion is getting too complicated and is able to explain what they are talking about in simple terms.
😂 that’s all he has to offer and his job as a shill
* NdGT
In my opinion this was a perfect panel. Everyone seemed to mesh so well, not in terms of agreement but in terms of stimulating fantastic debate and theory.
in this universe where there are infinite universes that have all possible combinations of properties and events, is there one that is the ONLY universe?
For truth nothing is impossible!
Such a pleasure watching this bunch of nerds, cracking absolutely genius geek jokes, that even now, 8 years later, I had no hesitation donating to whatever was their cause!
How can something find nothing?
She looks like somebody with extraordinary intelligence
The Love in Neil's eyes when talking about his parents is beautiful.
Do you think we would ever get to meet him? I really want to eat spanish tapas with him
No in Iraq nin initially Iowa ja nin jin we nya nnnnnninkinininininninnknknknnknnnknknnknknknnknnknninnnninnnninnknnnknnninnninnninnnbbbib
Binb nights I nikniiiinnniiibjibibiiniiiiiiinininibbibb
Carlos S bnibbibñ
Ñbnbnni
The problem I have with his piece of glass, is that the emergences are parallel, side by side. Instead of nested within each other, as we see in the universe.
Neil doing what he does best: Professional interrupter.
So true
Jj*&*o[[[
Pp]ppppppp].mmm
mmmppp
I nearly exploded when he put his hand over Lawrence's mouth.
Very stimulating conversation on the simulation ! Very bright people pondering the nature of the reality we find ourselves experiencing ! This is no doubt creating interest in the minds of young people to persue the sciences as an exciting career !
people talking about nothing stimulates you?
What if nothing can only be paradoxical? To have nothing always leaves you with the potential for everything. We just exist in one strand or state of the infinite possibilities. Yet we don't.
This is gold, I'm so pissed i haven't found it sooner
If you have not seen it, this one is a real treat with Neil, Krauss, Brian Greene, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and others.
/watch?v=9mLMxWhGSbs
{:o:o:}
Edit: actually, I think that's a copy or a mirror. Here is part 1 and 2 of the original:
/watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo
/watch?v=40YIIaF1qiw
I first realized that I had an interest in nothing by watching Jerry Seinfeld's TV show. Since then, my interest in nothing has become a passion for nothing.Which is why I love discussions like this. Because at the end of it, the conclusions that everyone has come to really leads to nothing. Which for me is cool, because even tho I am not and will never be anywhere near as inelligent as the people in this discussion group, I do try to live my life as close to nothing as much as I can (or more specifically, as close to to nothing as I can percieve it). As a matter of fact, as oon as I finish typing these words, I plan to live the rest of today by doing nothing. To my wife's continued chargrin, of course.
consciousness = nothing
I probably commented on this before, offered my solution, got nothing.
Krauss can't let his hatred for religion go for even one second. I had to stop it when he started his rant. I used to like him(Physics of Star Trek) but now i despise the man.
Why he is probably mad at how much humanity has been pushed back because of religion.
Cry more little bitch :)
+THE AMERICAN PATRIOT ...
A few things to combine. Macrobiotic Yin & Yang Philosophy and its dietary recommendations. Religions that include reincarnation. Science with its Hubble UDF observations of 176 Billion other galaxies. The up-coming 2018 James Webb Infrared Space Telescope expected to find over One Trillion galaxies. Oh yeah, most top Astronomy Scientist's now speculating many other earth-like (hell) planets within such a vast infinite material universe. Finally, Jesus In India ~ The 18 Missing Years.
ALLinALLgood it just gets old. He doesn't believe in a God. OK.so does he get a cash prize for repeatably saying it? If he hates religion so much he's more than welcome to move to North Korea where religion is banned.
Lots of things within this infinite material universe exist that have yet to be proven. For example, before man ever discovered atoms and germ microbes they did in fact still exist. All the many various planets and other galaxies also existed long before man had ever discovered them. Your "if it can't be proven it does not exist" logic is highly flawed. Now if you are specifically referring to how it is that humans cannot prove whether a God exists or not, I would also say that you do not live within the spiritual realm at this very moment in time. Of coarse God eludes you. However, if you could decalcify your pineal gland/God Gland you would better be able to vibrationally sense God and the Spiritual World. Hexafluorosilicic-acid/sodium fluoride is purposefully being put into our drinking water and other store bought beverages and food stuffs in order to calcify our pineal gland from receiving infinite universe frequencies/The Holy Spirit. Even Stanley Kubrick tried to warn us of this way back in 1964. RUclips: Dr Strangelove - Fluoridation 2
Live from Crazytown USA 2020! I sleep with youtube autoplay on. Every time I wake up there is a different Tyson -Degrassi vid. I am getting educated in Astrophysics by default! lol :)
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||
Meaning:
1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This (Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna comes Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is manifested) ,
2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna Indeed Remains (Because Divine Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite).
3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.
And that is the answer to nothingness..and the answer to the God
1:22:02 😂 Haha, I love Neil.