What is 'nothingness' as it relates to astronomy and space?

Answer 1

Here I will make a short attempt to analyze whether or not Nothing exists. This has undoubtedly been done many times before, and I must admit that I have not studied the subject before so I could be making well-known mistakes. Fortunately I won't feel embarrassed, because after all I am only a student.

Every particle has at least one property, and vacuum is seen in the context of space. Even the number 0 has a property, namely that it is a number. If it is a number, then it is something, and thus it is not Nothing. Nothing has no dimension or measurable property. Everything scientific has at least some value or meaning, but Nothing does not. The best way to define it is to say that it cannot be defined. It is exactly that abstract concept, for which any attempt to define it will fail. No definition can be constructed, because the smallest possible definition is already too large.

In order to understand what I will try to tell, what I mean by Nothing, it is essential to step out of the closed framework of logic and reason. In this discussion and by my definition, the fundamentals of logic can potentially become meaningless, so expecting to have them as support is expecting to fail. Once the barriers of logic have been breached, Nothing can come into existence. When reason cannot find the next step, intuition will know a way. It is up to you to either follow that intuition, or to go back to the fundamentally correct world of logic.

Does Nothing exist? This is not an easy question, but fortunately we know something about Nothing. We know that if it does exist, then we cannot define it, not in words and not in logic or mathematics. Therefore, by using a formal approach we can never prove its existence, because it cannot be expressed in formal science as a result of its definition. Although it appears to be impossible, let's try a logical analysis to see where we fail. We can assume that something exists, because otherwise Nothing exists and this analysis would already be concluded. One would think that if something exists, it cannot be possible that Nothing exists. Case distinction gives us the following:

Case A: It is the case that Nothing does not exist. This is in line with our assumption.

Case B: It is the case that Nothing exists. The world (all that exists) contains Nothing. This combined with the assumption that something exists results in a contradiction, because there cannot be something and Nothing at the same time.

Imagine two people taking opposite sides here. Person A claims that Nothing does not exist. He follows pure logic, and the contradiction in case B forces him to case A. Person B claims that Nothing does exist. He knows that with this opinion, he faces a contradiction in his logic, so his reasoning does not appear to be correct.

Person A must think that person B has a very strange sense of logic, because person B believes that a contradiction can be true. With such reversed-logic reasoning, any attempt to prove to person B that Nothing does not exist will inevitably fail. If a contradiction could be equal to True, then for person A the logical conclusion would have been that it is possible for Nothing to exist in the first place.

Person B cannot show to person A exactly what Nothing is, because it is per definition undefinable. Even worse, in order to understand that Nothing exists, person B has had to accept that a contradiction is true. Because person A does not allow contradictions to be true, person A will never accept any proof based on such an assumption.

Person A is easy to follow, and he has no reason to doubt his own logic, because it is at the core of our science, and science has proved itself. Person B thinks that a contradiction can be true and because of this, logically, his belief in Nothing is justified.

Whose side would you pick in the discussion between person A and B? Or would you rather watch from a distance, satisfied with your own creative solution?

With the introduction of (my version of) Nothing, I have introduced something that cannot be comprehended by logic or any other formal science, as a result of its own definition. What is exactly this abstract concept, that science cannot comprehend? I think that if Nothing exists, then it is certainly the contradiction that results in True. The one thing that formal science cannot comprehend. The undefinable concept, defined only by being undefinable, thus only defined in terms of itself. It is the golden median, and it is the only true universal constant, because it explains the entire world as a result of its definition. Because it is timeless, it is always there, and because it has no position, it is everywhere. Because of Nothing, everything is possible, and if everything is possible, then everything is Nothing.

I think I have found Nothing.

Answer 2

No space is a whole solar system full of planets but Pluto is not one anymore it is a dwarft planet