What is bigger, nothing or everything?

donfers

It's a difficult question to answer.

Most of the linear-minded people would immediately say everything but I guess it comes down to how we linguistically perceive the meaning of the words "nothing" and "everything".

If everything means everything that we know to exist and nothing means the absence of everything then surely we must acknowledge that the probability is that what doesn't exist (nothing) or has never existed (nothing) or has no existence (nothing) could well be bigger than what we know to exist (everything)

Imagine everything (all things in the known universe). OK now imagine if there is anything outside of that, some vaccuum or vast nothingness, surely surely surely that must be bigger than everything. Surely everything has an edge/a boundary and beyond that "nothing" is infinite and colossal and never-ending.

Everything by its very nature has limits and boundaries, nothing doesn't

Therefore (takes pipe out of mouth and waves it about for dramatic effect) my hypothesis is nothing>everything.

Have I convinced you?

Am I a genius? (I'll even accept being called a madman or junkie as these are often just geniuses before their times)

orourkeda

Shut up

TheZohanS

I hear orange juice will cure it.

orourkeda

E=MC2

OutlawPete

Fresh air ftw.

AnonoBoy

Pass me that bottle opener and quit your bellyaching.

donfers

My only regret is that i didn't manage to fit the word "postulate" into my initial post.

However thus far I feel that my hypothesis is standing up to AH's most rigorous of counter-analyses.

partyatmygaff

donfers wrote: »

It's a difficult question to answer.

Most of the linear-minded people would immediately say everything but I guess it comes down to how we linguistically perceive the meaning of the words "nothing" and "everything".

If everything means everything that we know to exist and nothing means the absence of everything then surely we must acknowledge that the probability is that what doesn't exist (nothing) or has never existed (nothing) or has no existence (nothing) could well be bigger than what we know to exist (everything)

Imagine everything (all things in the known universe). OK now imagine if there is anything outside of that, some vaccuum or vast nothingness, surely surely surely that must be bigger than everything. Surely everything has an edge/a boundary and beyond that "nothing" is infinite and colossal and never-ending.

Everything by its very nature has limits and boundaries, nothing doesn't

Therefore (takes pipe out of mouth and waves it about for dramatic effect) my hypothesis is nothing>everything.

Have I convinced you?

Am I a genius? (I'll even accept being called a madman or junkie as these are often just geniuses before their times)

When did you get back from Amsterdam?

Scarydoll

Yore ma!:pac::pac::pac::pac:

TheKells

Surely everything would include nothing?

Orange69

Lets make a show about nothing!

Bonito

Basically what the Op is saying is this:

No penis > Penis.

Interesting.

donfers

Bonito wrote: »

Basically what the Op is saying is this:

No penis > Penis.

Interesting.

Not exactly although what you appear to be saying is:

Women are nothing and sex\self-pleasuring is everything

Would you care to expand on that hypothesis? It needs more empirical data to be fully ackowledged by the scientific community

evercloserunion

Why is the OP defining nothing and everything in those terms? Defining nothing as everything we don't know (as opposed to everything we do know) is quite frankly ridiculous.

donfers

evercloserunion wrote: »

Why is the OP defining nothing and everything in those terms? Defining nothing as everything we don't know (as opposed to everything we do know) is quite frankly ridiculous.

Are you questioning my academic credentials?

Let me hear your definitions then dictionary boy (there, that told you!)

ucdmike

I like turtles

Daemos

Theoretically they can be the same. If I have a room full of everything, and there is literally no empty space left, we have reached the maximum limit. If I had another room, the same size but with nothing in it, everything = nothing

evercloserunion

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

Theoretically they can be the same. If I have a room full of everything, and there is literally no empty space left, we have reached the maximum limit. If I had another room, the same size but with nothing in it, everything = nothing

Trouble is, everything can't fit in a room.

Bonito

donfers wrote: »

Therefore (takes pipe out of mouth and waves it about for dramatic effect) my hypothesis is nothing>everything.

Bonito wrote: »

Basically what the Op is saying is this:

No penis > Penis.

Interesting.

donfers wrote: »

Not exactly although what you appear to be saying is:

Women are nothing and sex\self-pleasuring is everything

Would you care to expand on that hypothesis? It needs more empirical data to be fully ackowledged by the scientific community

Nope. Women have no penis. i.e. nothing between the legs. Men do. Therefore, your theory, that nothing > everything = No penis > Penis.

:cool:

I should really stop making myself out to be a sexist pig! They'll ban me from TLL!

donfers

ucdmike wrote: »

I like turtles

that's what four years of college education will get you, a startingly concise satire on the bureaurcratic boffins who seek to categorise and evaluate everything

I am mesmerised by the sheer earth-shattering profoundness of your words young man, when do you commence your doctorate? Nobel surely awaits your inevitable calling!

evercloserunion

donfers wrote: »

Are you questioning my academic credentials?

Let me hear your definitions then dictionary boy (there, that told you!)

Oh don't mind me, I'm sure I've got nothing on you.

Meaning of course that I have an infinite amount of things on you but you just don't know about them.

donfers

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

Theoretically they can be the same. If I have a room full of everything, and there is literally no empty space left, we have reached the maximum limit. If I had another room, the same size but with nothing in it, everything = nothing

your research parameters lack validity


room does not equal universe

Daemos

evercloserunion wrote: »

Trouble is, everything can't fit in a room.

It's a big room

Actually the more I think about the OP's post the more it makes sense. If I have everything in one room and nothing in another of the same size they are the same, but what about everywhere else? There is nothing there also, so nothing > everything

ucdmike

donfers wrote: »

that's what four years of college education will get you, a startingly concise satire on the bureaurcratic boffins who seek to categorise and evaluate everything

I am mesmerised by the sheer earth-shattering profoundness of your words young man, when do you commence your doctorate? Nobel surely awaits your inevitable calling!

Thats specious reasoning...

donfers

evercloserunion wrote: »

Oh don't mind me, I'm sure I've got nothing on you.

Meaning of course that I have an infinite amount of things on you but you just don't know about them.

I'm glad you have come around to accepting the accuracy of my hypothesis padowan

take everything

Aren't you just conceptualizing "nothing" as some
thing.

If outside of the universe there is nothing (or as you say a vacuum), isn't that just more of "something".
A vacuum exists afterall, so it must be something.

Now there could genuinely be just the universe and then non-existent "nothing" (not a vacuum).
How much nothing would there be?
Eh nothing presumably.

So genuine nothing in actuality would be less than something presumably.

I dunno tbh.

Bonito

take everything wrote: »

Aren't you just conceptualizing "nothing" as some
thing.

If outside of the universe there is nothing (or as you say a vacuum), isn't that just more of "something".
A vacuum exists afterall, so it must be something.

Now there could genuinely be just the universe and then non-existent "nothing" (not a vacuum).
How much nothing would there be?
Eh nothing presumably.

So genuine nothing in actuality would be less than something presumably.

I dunno tbh.

BOOM!

take everything

Bonito wrote: »

BOOM!

I'm not really familiar with the physics tbh, but why would dark matter come into the OP's query.

Isn't the OP just talking about existent vs non-existent entities.
Isn't all dark matter just another existent entity.

Bonito

take everything wrote: »

I'm not really familiar with the physics tbh, but why would dark matter come into the OP's query.

Isn't the OP just talking about existent vs non-existent entities.
Isn't all dark matter just another existent entity.

I quoted you. It was directed to you. You were saying that if there's nothing outside everything then that nothing = something. That something is dark matter. Undetectable to some methods, meaning it's nothing, but detectable under others, meaning it's something. Something = Nothing within everything. Makes sense?:D

Kirnsy

donfers wrote: »

It's a difficult question to answer.

Most of the linear-minded people would immediately say everything but I guess it comes down to how we linguistically perceive the meaning of the words "nothing" and "everything".

If everything means everything that we know to exist and nothing means the absence of everything then surely we must acknowledge that the probability is that what doesn't exist (nothing) or has never existed (nothing) or has no existence (nothing) could well be bigger than what we know to exist (everything)

Imagine everything (all things in the known universe). OK now imagine if there is anything outside of that, some vaccuum or vast nothingness, surely surely surely that must be bigger than everything. Surely everything has an edge/a boundary and beyond that "nothing" is infinite and colossal and never-ending.

Everything by its very nature has limits and boundaries, nothing doesn't

Therefore (takes pipe out of mouth and waves it about for dramatic effect) my hypothesis is nothing>everything.

Have I convinced you?

Am I a genius? (I'll even accept being called a madman or junkie as these are often just geniuses before their times)

Don't you have some sort of squirrell situation you should be taking care of?

take everything

<p><p>

Bonito wrote: »

I quoted you. It was directed to you. <a href="{smilies}/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smilie" smilieid="9" class="inlineimg" /> You were saying that if there's nothing outside everything then that nothing = something. That something is dark matter. Undetectable to some methods, meaning it's nothing, but detectable under others, meaning it's something. Something = Nothing within everything. Makes sense?<a href="{smilies}/biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="1" class="inlineimg" />

No what i was saying was that if the OP believed a vacuum surrounded the universe, then that vacuum would be something (because it exists).

ie:
Vacuum= something.
Genuine nothing= nothing.

It was just a contention.

But the (un)detectability of dark matter- does that inform the (non-)existence of dark matter.Is that just a perceived existence thing, not an existence thing(again not familiar with the physics of DM- maybe it is weirder than i'm imagining, so just wondering if there's something else to it).

Turtyturd

Nothing cannot exist so therefore everything has to be bigger.

Feeona

As Shakespeare himself said at the time when scientists and mathematicians were trying to prove that 'nothing' exists, it's all Much Ado about Nothing

Jay P

Is something bigger than nothing?
Yes it is. It's infinitely bigger than nothing.

Following on from that, if you take everything, that ends up being even bigger than something.

Hence, everything is bigger than nothing.

Rented Mule

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When did you get back from Amsterdam?

I don't think he ever left !!

Rented Mule

Jay P wrote: »

Is something bigger than nothing?
Yes it is. It's infinitely bigger than nothing.

Following on from that, if you take everything, that ends up being even bigger than something.

Hence, everything is bigger than nothing.

No ....everything must fill nothing. Therefore...nothing is bigger.

You can't fit 15kilos of ****e in a 10 kilo bag (unless we're talking about a select few areas of Dublin).

My name is URL

http://www.documentary-log.com/you-are-watching-to-infinity-and-beyond/

If you have time, watch that documentary.

Rented Mule

Turtyturd wrote: »

Nothing cannot exist so therefore everything has to be bigger.

What is the Universe expanding into ?

Turtyturd

Rented Mule wrote: »

What is the Universe expanding into ?

I presume its expanding into space, space is not nothing.

Rented Mule

Rented Mule wrote: »

What is the Universe expanding into ?

The Ether.

Rented Mule

Turtyturd wrote: »

I presume its expanding into space, space is not nothing.

The universe is an all encompassing term for 'space' and everything it holds. So when the universe is expanding, so is space.

spudmonkey17

donfers wrote: »

What is bigger, nothing or everything?

Nothing is a subset of everything therefore everything is bigger. Everything includes all the stuff that hasn't happened or doesn't exist and so includes nothing.

Check and mate. :cool:

Of course, your question is bollocks in the first place because you haven't defined the definition of the word bigger. Bigger how? Like mass? Coz if it's mass your question is even more irrelevant. I won't explain why.