The most fundamental question in all of philosophy

[Zinjanthropos]

People usually don't really dissect what we mean by "nothing." I start from a usage standpoint. What do you mean, or are referring to, when you say "nothing." It is correct that "nothing" has a context (in reference to what), but few seem to really delve into what that context would be. For example, if someone shows you an empty box and asks what's in it, you'd naturally say "nothing." The context is the box, but more so, the context is the potential of the box. You wouldn't normally say there was nothing in a solid cube, but you recognize a capacity of a box's space. So "nothing," in an everyday context is really synonymous with potential. The only difference between our common, contextual "nothing" and an absolute "nothing" is the magnitude of potential.

Good answer. Is it right to say that nothing has the potential to become something? Or vice versa?

What’s going on? Take the case of virtual particles. I’ve read articles that say they either exist or don’t exist. The following is more down to my level of thinking and is of the opinion virtual particles do exist.

https://faculty.washington.edu/seattle/p...tual-5.pdf

Philosophically speaking…..How can someone deny existence of a thing when it experimentally has been proven to exist? Why is it easier for me to believe that virtual particles wink in and out of existence instead of not exist at all, even though it happens so fast we can’t even measure it?

Same goes for the present….Saw an article that stated we see the universe at a frame rate of 1.85 septillion frames per second, c divided by Planck length or something like that. So I can’t help thinking about what’s between each frame. Is that what a moment is? The present? Could each frame be the present moment? Or maybe it’s just nothing. (That’s what sparked my interest in the present, for time being at least)

[confused2]

As Z. is getting at .. 'empty space' isn't empty. The best 'proof' of this I know of is the Casimir effect which predicts parallel plates will be forced together (or attract) when a small distance apart. My previous understanding was that this was the result of excluding modes of oscillation which existed in 'empty' space but I'm not seeing that in the Wiki so I'm probably wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

To have truly empty space you'd need a region without the physics you find in our universe.

Speculating wildly..
Pre Big Bang there might have just been a one dimensional 'thing' with time but no spatial dimensions.
Or a zero dimensional 'thing'.
IMHO being able to define the properties of a thing makes it a thing .. partly in terms of its potential as already discussed and partly in terms of its actual potential energy.

[geordief]

As Z. is getting at .. 'empty space' isn't empty.  The best 'proof' of this I know of is the Casimir effect which predicts parallel plates will be forced together (or attract) when a small distance apart. My previous understanding was that this was the result of excluding modes of oscillation which existed in 'empty' space but I'm not seeing that in the Wiki so I'm probably wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

To have truly empty space you'd need a region without the physics you find in our universe.

Speculating wildly..
Pre Big Bang there might have just been a one dimensional 'thing' with time but no spatial dimensions.
Or a zero dimensional 'thing'.
IMHO being able to define the properties of a thing makes it a thing .. partly in terms of its potential as already discussed and partly in terms of its actual potential energy.

If one accepts the hypothesesis that such a region (pure nothingness) exists anywhere (esp outside the universe defined by what we deem to be the universal laws of nature)  there is no physical method whereby we could verify its existence.

To do so would involve our interacting with it and destroying the hypothesized state.

If that is so ,then this hypothesized state exists only in the realm  of the imaginative mind along with all the other possible and impossible scenarios we are at liberty to  create there.

Eg A  region populated by banana shaped  reptilian  mangoes breathing square porcupines after lunch  for intoxicating jousts of intellectual takeaways. 

Makes as much sense.

[Syne]

Good answer. Is it right to say that nothing has the potential to become something? Or vice versa?

What’s going on? Take the case of virtual particles. I’ve read articles that say they either exist or don’t exist. The following is more down to my level of thinking and is of the opinion virtual particles do exist.

https://faculty.washington.edu/seattle/p...tual-5.pdf

Zero-point energy is the lowest energy any quantum system can have, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle alone, and responsible for things like the Casimir Effect. It essentially is energy from nothing other than the fact that quantum discreteness means an energy can spontaneously come into being so long as it only exists for a very short time. It doesn't require energy to generate this energy. That's as close to pure potential as I can imagine finding evidence for.

[confused2]

As Z. is getting at .. 'empty space' isn't empty.  The best 'proof' of this I know of is the Casimir effect which predicts parallel plates will be forced together (or attract) when a small distance apart. My previous understanding was that this was the result of excluding modes of oscillation which existed in 'empty' space but I'm not seeing that in the Wiki so I'm probably wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

To have truly empty space you'd need a region without the physics you find in our universe.

Speculating wildly..
Pre Big Bang there might have just been a one dimensional 'thing' with time but no spatial dimensions.
Or a zero dimensional 'thing'.
IMHO being able to define the properties of a thing makes it a thing .. partly in terms of its potential as already discussed and partly in terms of its actual potential energy.

If one accepts the hypothesesis that  such a region (pure nothingness) exists anywhere (esp outside the universe defined by what we deem to be the universal laws of nature)  there is no physical method whereby we could verify its existence.

To do so would involve our interacting with it and destroying the hypothesized state.

If that is so ,then this hypothesized state exists only in the realm  of the imaginative mind along with all the other possible and impossible scenarios we are at liberty to  create there.

Eg A  region populated by banana shaped  reptilian  mangoes breathing square porcupines after lunch  for intoxicating jousts of intellectual takeaways. 

Makes as much sense.

Harking back to the OP..

Nothing must have no properties: No size. No shape. No position. No mass-energy, forces, wave forms, or anything else you can think of. No time, no past, no present, no future.

My intended point was that if such a null existed (>>>existed!<<) it had the potential to ..
Personally I'm with there being turtles all the way down .. a new universe could form within ours at any moment.

Edit.. Welcome to the forum.

[Zinjanthropos]

Editing….my big problem is describing my thoughts, thanks for the patience.

I’m rethinking nothing being potential and wonder if that violates the law of non-contradiction. If something is A then it cannot not be A. So how can nothing be something?

Not sure how Law of non-contradiction works for quantum particle and wave/particle duality. What if a quantum particle has a third property…..winking in/out of existence? What happens to the wave portion when the wave function collapses upon observation? Flatlines? Does that qualify as winking out of existence?

Also….

When Syne said in post #2 that ‘if there was ever nothing, then there would still be nothing’, is it because nothing cannot ‘be’….at least that’s how I see it. Did I interpret that wrong?

[confused2]

Not sure how Law of non-contradiction works for quantum particle and wave/particle duality.

Maybe neither the 'particle' nor the 'wave' words are exact - the thing is actually a something else and 'wave/particle' is as close as we can easily describe it.

What happens to the wave portion when the wave function collapses upon observation?

I suspect what we call a wave function is just a mathematical construct that is predictive - how quantum particles actually do what they do is unknown.

[Syne]

Editing….my big problem is describing my thoughts, thanks for the patience.

I’m rethinking nothing being potential and wonder if that violates the law of non-contradiction. If something is A then it cannot not be A. So how can nothing be something?

Not sure how Law of non-contradiction works for quantum particle and wave/particle duality. What if a quantum particle has a third property…..winking in/out of existence? What happens to the wave portion when the wave function collapses upon observation? Flatlines? Does that qualify as winking out of existence?

But what is potential, in the generic sense, other than the possibility for something? And if it's just the possibility, it's not any kind of actual existence. I see no contradiction there, unless someone insists that all potential must come from something, like an electrical potential, etc.. But I'm leery of any "all" claims.

The law of noncontradiction only requires that "contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time." Since particles never exhibit wave and particle characteristics at the same time, there's no violation. Same for "nothing." It's only when something exists that "nothing" becomes a bounded potential.

IMO, the wave function describes something the particles are doing, that we cannot define in terms of individual particles. Seeing as quantum theory is based on making everything discrete, it's not really well-suited to describe non-particle behavior. Kind of a holdover from classical physics thinking.

Also….

When Syne said in post #2 that ‘if there was ever nothing, then there would still be nothing’, is it because nothing cannot ‘be’….at least that’s how I see it. Did I interpret that wrong?

It's just the old canard of "something can't come from nothing." If something can't come from nothing, if there was ever absolutely nothing, there would be no way for something to ever exist. But that's assuming things cannot spontaneously pop into existence, like virtual particles do.