4 ms·

I'm curious how the field that allows vibration exists instead of just pure nothing that isn't a field that doesn't allow vibration or bending or virtual partic

I'm curious how the field that allows vibration exists instead of just pure nothing that isn't a field that doesn't allow vibration or bending or virtual particles etc. Heisenberg's principle seems contingent on the void of nothing being a field that can wobble.

throw0101c 3y ago
> Heisenberg's principle seems contingent on the void of nothing being a field that can wobble. Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded, so now—depending on who you talk to—you can have the word pointing to different concepts. See "seven types/levels of nothing": * https://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/Closer-to-Truth-Essays/Levels-of-Nothing-Robert-Lawrence-Kuhn-Skeptic-magazine-2013.pdf https://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/Closer-to-Truth-Essays... * https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-lawrence-kuhn/ https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-l...
- Zondartul 3y ago
  A silly thought I had while reading that article: it presupposes that "nothing" is a noun. In doing so, it assumes that in the sentence "the <noun> <verbs>" you can substitute "nothing" and it would mean "<nothing> is an entity that does the <verbing>" instead of "<verbing> simply does not happen", and I feel that is a meaningful distinction.
- DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
  > Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded "Infinity" is another one of those things that used to be murky, but simple; after Cantor we now have different infinities ℵ0, ℵ1... an un-Ockhamian proliferation of terms, and we have to worry about the spaces between them. Science ruins everything!
  - throw0101c 3y ago
    The use of "literally" to mean figuratively has grown in popularity in recent years (as a form of emphasis); though it is not a new use: * https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

throw0101c 3y ago

> Heisenberg's principle seems contingent on the void of nothing being a field that can wobble. Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded, so now—depending on who you talk to—you can have the word pointing to different concepts. See "seven types/levels of nothing": * https://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/Closer-to-Truth-Essays/Levels-of-Nothing-Robert-Lawrence-Kuhn-Skeptic-magazine-2013.pdf https://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/Closer-to-Truth-Essays... * https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-lawrence-kuhn/ https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-l...

Zondartul 3y ago
A silly thought I had while reading that article: it presupposes that "nothing" is a noun. In doing so, it assumes that in the sentence "the <noun> <verbs>" you can substitute "nothing" and it would mean "<nothing> is an entity that does the <verbing>" instead of "<verbing> simply does not happen", and I feel that is a meaningful distinction.
DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
> Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded "Infinity" is another one of those things that used to be murky, but simple; after Cantor we now have different infinities ℵ0, ℵ1... an un-Ockhamian proliferation of terms, and we have to worry about the spaces between them. Science ruins everything!
- throw0101c 3y ago
  The use of "literally" to mean figuratively has grown in popularity in recent years (as a form of emphasis); though it is not a new use: * https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally