Can there be nothing/non-existence alongside existence?

1. 2015-10-12 at 5:40 AM UTC

   #1
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   Could there nothing existing right now also?
2. 2015-10-12 at 7:24 AM UTC

   #2
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   If nothing existed right now you couldn't ask yourself that question and this little exchange could not have happened.
3. 2015-10-12 at 11:49 AM UTC

   #3
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   All the nothing is kept at bay from the rest of existence by Sploo's cranium.
4. 2015-10-12 at 5:30 PM UTC

   #4
   

   Sophie Pedophile Tech Support
   To answer this question you must first ask yourself what is existence? If existence is everything contained within the universe, time, matter etc. Then it is not a strecth to assume that outside of our universe there could exist literally nothing. We'll never know though because we're stuck to our universe likes flies to sticky paper.
5. 2015-10-13 at 4:09 AM UTC

   #5
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
   Reality as we know it is not really there. It's a perception of the brain, which in itself is not really there. All matter and energy is sensed and defined from perspective only, and is not dependent of the actual "nothingness" it really is. Everyone sees trees the same because the brain is programmed and operates to see it that way. In the same way, the brain sees the brain itself the way the brain is programmed to see it. That doesn't mean the brain is really there, it just means the brain sees it as there; there's a difference. The entire cosmos, as we see and sense it, is a construct of thought, but not our own construct. We were made to experience reality the way we do. We can't fully understand it, because we're in it.
6. 2015-10-13 at 7:24 AM UTC

   #6
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   Dude its a long and hard road to understanding nothing. Existence and non existence are a bit easier. I mean lets consider the existence of the universe. Humans did not exist during the entirety of earths existence. And the earth and its system is likely far younger than the galaxy in which it resides. So we could say that in this moment there is existence, or all the physical things that make up this particular moments. We could even apply this to a set of moments and get the same outcome. That outcome will be that there are objects in the realm of existence and objects outside the realm of existence. Therefore in order for some object to exist it must rely on objects and events that existed at some moment but does not exist in the present moment. Like dinosaurs.
   
   
7. 2015-10-15 at 4:47 AM UTC

   #7
   arthur treacher African Astronaut
   is this all there is? it has to be, because if there was a place where 'nothing' truly existed, it would probably unravel the fabric of reality itself: http://www.askamathematician.com/201...-living-in-it/ http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/decay.html
   
   
   "The vacuum is the most absolute ground state: no waves, no particles, nothing at all to elevate the energy above zero*. However, all the dynamics of the universe are governed by differences in energy level. For example, when you fill a tub it doesn’t matter if the tub is at the top of a mountain, or at the bottom of a mine, the water will behave the same way. So, the idea behind a false vacuum is that what we consider the ground state of the universe isn’t really the ground state, and it may be possible to drop into an even lower-energy state (drain the tub, so to speak). What we think is the ground state, the vacuum, may not be the true ground state. So it’s called a “false vacuum”.
   
   The “danger” of living in a false vacuum is that, under the proper circumstances the false vacuum can drop into the true vacuum. The cause is usually described as a sufficient burst of energy to get the appropriate fields “over the hump” (picture above). If the difference in energy between the false vacuum and true vacuum is large enough, then the surrounding space can likewise be tipped into the lower state. In theory, a “false vacuum collapse” would expand at light speed (or about light speed) from the originating event, and destroy the heck out of everything in the affected, and ever-expanding, region."
8. 2015-10-15 at 4:49 AM UTC

   #8
   arthur treacher African Astronaut

   is this all there is? it has to be, because if there was a place where 'nothing' truly existed, it would probably unravel the fabric of reality itself: http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-what-is-the-false-vacuum-and-are-we-living-in-it/ http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/decay.html

   
   
   [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=16px]The vacuum is the most absolute ground state: no waves, no particles, nothing at all to elevate the energy above zero*. However, all the dynamics of the universe are governed by differences in energy level. For example, when you fill a tub it doesn’t matter if the tub is at the top of a mountain, or at the bottom of a mine, the water will behave the same way. So, the idea behind a false vacuum is that what we consider the ground state of the universe isn’t really the ground state, and it may be possible to drop into an even lower-energy state (drain the tub, so to speak). What we think is the ground state, the vacuum, may not be the true ground state. So it’s called a “false vacuum”.[/SIZE][/FONT]
   [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=16px]The “danger” of living in a false vacuum is that, under the proper circumstances the false vacuum can drop into the true vacuum. The cause is usually described as a sufficient burst of energy to get the appropriate fields “over the hump” (picture above). If the difference in energy between the false vacuum and true vacuum is large enough, then the surrounding space can likewise be tipped into the lower state. In theory, a “false vacuum collapse” would expand at light speed (or about light speed) from the originating event, and destroy the heck out of everything in the affected, and ever-expanding, region.[/SIZE][/FONT]
   
9. 2015-10-15 at 4:52 AM UTC

   #9
   

   mmQ Lisa Turtle
   If something isn't there, it's absent. The absence of something is the presence of nothing. Nothing is a thing, so yes. There can be nothing right alongside something, quite easily in fact, as in, it is everywhere all around us. There is nothing standing on my deck right now. Oh go ahead and tell me there are cringe particles out there. Well what's between those particles? Nothing. The presence of nothing, because it's a thing. FUCK YOU. We are nothing and something at the same time, all the time. I am nothing to someone, and I am something to someone.
10. 2015-10-15 at 3:56 PM UTC

    #10
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

    Nothing is a thing, so yes.

    
    No it's not.
    
    

    Well what's between those particles? Nothing.

    
    There may be nothing between those particles, but those particles exist. Therefore it is incorrect to claim "nothing exists".
11. 2015-10-15 at 4:40 PM UTC

    #11
    

    -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Everything is something, otherwise it wouldn't be there, and you would not be able to differentiate it from anything else. Reality and existence as we know it is merely perception. Nothing is really there, but at the same time, it's really there for us.
12. 2015-10-20 at 7:02 AM UTC

    #12
    

    Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    If we're to determine what exists in reality, we require a category for things which do not. Non-existence is a necessary, if imaginal, realm for non-realities.
13. 2015-10-20 at 12:56 PM UTC

    #13
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    As soon as you think of non existence it exists. Think about that...