3 ms·
I liked the table comparing many disciplines' default instance of nothing: Physics: No energy: the vacuum Geometry: No dimensionality: a point Set theory: No
by humanistbot 4y ago
I liked the table comparing many disciplines' default instance of nothing:
Physics: No energy: the vacuum
Geometry: No dimensionality: a point
Set theory: No elements: the empty set
Arithmetic: No magnitude: zero
Information theory: No information: zero bits
Then they ask: "There is an unlimited number of possible theoretical systems. Does this mean there are also unlimited conceptions of nothing?"
- soulofmischief 4y agoI would answer that there is surely a single supreme nothingness, such as Wuji[0], which would contain all sets of nothingness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_%28philosophy%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_%28philosophy%29
- tablespoon 4y ago> I liked the table comparing many disciplines' default instance of nothing: > Physics: No energy: the vacuum And not being aware of the difference can lead one to dumbly misunderstand the question with confidence (e.g. some physicist explaining how the universe could have arisen out of "nothing," when they're really explaining how it could have arisen out of a vacuum, which metaphysically is definitely a something).
- voxl 4y agoCan you, metaphysically, define nothing? I ask because I wager you can't, and I am highly suspect that metaphysics has philosophical value.
- tablespoon 4y ago> Can you, metaphysically, define nothing? I ask because I wager you can't, Are you saying that you can't define "absence"? But asking me is silly and pointless: I'm no philosopher. And even if philosophers have trouble, that doesn't mean there's no merit to the concept: it just means its difficult. > and I am highly suspect that metaphysics has philosophical value. I'm pretty sure you meant the exact opposite of what you actually said, and I strongly suspect you're wrong.