Thought experiment on the paradox of nothingness

[Koko Ricky]

If we take me, as a singular entity, we can say that I comprise a complex system of various interacting atoms. If we strip down to just a single hydrogen atom, we lose quite a bit of information, reducing our system now to just a single electron, a single proton, and their properties. We eliminate more information by zooming in and focusing on the proton. If we crack it open, a quark-gluon plasma can be detected, and we were able to crack that open, we might find the theoretical strings of string theory; one-dimensional filaments vibrating in a high-dimensional membrane. However, the string is already one-dimensional; there's not really a way to break it down further that we know of.

 

In a sense, at this point you run out of properties by which to describe something. The more we zoom in, the less information is present. It would almost seem as though attempting to dissect the string would show us nothing at all, as quantum mechanics implies that there isn't really anything physical that can be detected at small enough scales, with strings supposedly occupying that scale space.

 

The great contradiction here is that, if there is nothing to be found by zooming all the way in, then something must account for there being a starting point at which properties (such as spin, mass, charge, etc.) begin to emerge. However, while emergence from nothingness causes thinky brain pain, the same is true for proposing any starting point, as we naturally want there to be a mechanism that allows the starting point to emerge. Thus, there is a paradox of nothingness here; asserting nothing at the bottom layer feels as mysterious a proposition as asserting a starting point.

 

EDIT: A third and equally frustrating potential is infinite regression, where any starting point can be preceded by an even smaller starting point, embedded inside the larger one.

Edited March 27 by Koko Ricky

[OniriA]

I want what you're having.

[Koko Ricky]

1 hour ago, OniriA said:

I want what you're having.

This perspective comes from about two decades of hobbyist research into quantum mechanics and physics, so if you want what I'm having, look into those topics.

[dasho]

I don't understand the paradox here. It sounds like you're just discussing the limits of observation and detection. Asserting that what is left is "nothing" because you have no way to discern it seems like a logical error.

[OniriA]

13 minutes ago, Koko Ricky said:

This perspective comes from about two decades of hobbyist research into quantum mechanics and physics, so if you want what I'm having, look into those topics.

 

I just saw the thread title and then a wall of text. Unfortunately I didn't read through that wall of text so I'm unaware of the perspective.

Sorry in advance.

 

Do you vape?

[Koko Ricky]

9 minutes ago, dasho said:

I don't understand the paradox here. It sounds like you're just discussing the limits of observation and detection. Asserting that what is left is "nothing" because you have no way to discern it seems like a logical error.

The paradox is that you run out of information the more you zoom in to something. If we zoom into a JPG, eventually the entire screen is occupied by a single pixel; no further division is possible. The Planck spaces of quantum mechanics are analogous to pixels in that our current ruleset prevents further division, as though we hit the basement level. If nothing is beyond such a point, it would make no sense, since we intuit every layer to have components in a lower layer. But, proposing that implies infinite regression, which we don't intuit because we want there to be a way to account for an infinite amount of available information. It doesn't work either way.

 

Now, I don't doubt there is an error in the math, as quantum mechanics is incomplete--there's not even accounting for gravity in quantum theory--but this is definitely a paradox because everything emerging from a nothing state doesn't fit our logic, and neither does an infinite regression of ever-smaller components.

[Koko Ricky]

Just now, OniriA said:

 

I just saw the thread title and then a wall of text. Unfortunately I didn't read through that wall of text so I'm unaware of the perspective.

Sorry in advance.

 

Do you vape?

What is the correlation between my diatribe on nothingness and vaping? Are you talking about nicotine?

[dasho]

5 minutes ago, Koko Ricky said:

The paradox is that you run out of information the more you zoom in to something. If we zoom into a JPG, eventually the entire screen is occupied by a single pixel; no further division is possible.

 

This is what I'm talking about. You've already made an assumption that no further division is possible. If I take my coffee mug and hold it right up to my eye, by this logic, "blue ceramic" is the point beyond which no division is possible. Of course, I know that this is not the case, but my unaided eye is unable to discern anything beyond that.

[Koko Ricky]

10 minutes ago, dasho said:

 

This is what I'm talking about. You've already made an assumption that no further division is possible. If I take my coffee mug and hold it right up to my eye, by this logic, "blue ceramic" is the point beyond which no division is possible. Of course, I know that this is not the case, but my unaided eye is unable to discern anything beyond that.

I'm not sure I absolutely believe that assumption. Quantum mechanics implies that, and it is the single most accurate scientific theory ever, but we also know it's incomplete. At the same time, an intuition tells me that we should eventually run out of information in describing any given system. If it were infinite, then there should never be any shortage of available energy.

[OniriA]

So then are you trying to find the ultimate god particle on the tiniest scale that gives you all the answers and tells you " Hey, look. I'm the supreme intelligence behind all this that made this while residing on the most minuscule scale possible, now you found me!" Perhaps you're looking at it in the wrong way?

[Fonze]

It's not the quarks that make a thing, but the way they're arranged.

 

Everything in this universe is relative and can be examined far too zoomed out or far too zoomed in to get a clear picture and context of what you're looking at. Particularly when we do not have the technology or current ability to go further. I don't see a paradox here, only limits of our technology and understanding. And maybe a bit of a bad assumption that zooming into a picture gives a clearer context than framing it contextually.

 

Idk enough about quantum whatchamacallits and whosawhatsits to comment on that part of your topic, but I'm not sure I'd buy that it's a paradox to be taken seriously without some scientists in the field (appeal to authority, to be fair) making the claim.

 

Still tho, interesting topic!

[magicsofa]

36 minutes ago, Koko Ricky said:

At the same time, an intuition tells me that we should eventually run out of information in describing any given system.

 

As finite beings ourselves, I'm sure we will experience limits to observation. But so far, there has never been something that couldn't eventually be further divided. Every theoretical limit has been broken up until now.

Until there is some proof that we've reached an end, we have no reason to think that there is one. And even if something looks like the end from our perspective, there will always be the possibility that we are just mistaken and simply unable to cross the barrier at that time.

Consider the observable universe... there are things whose light will never reach us. But if we could travel and/or send information faster than light, then we could observe beyond that limit.

In conclusion, proving that we've hit an actual limit, rather than the limit of our own abilities, would be nearly impossible.

[97th Century Fox]

You find the most interesting things on Doomworld, this was a good read!

[roadworx]

im le tired

Edited March 27 by roadworx

[dasho]

4 minutes ago, roadworx said:

nah that's not at all what op is saying. i'm really sleep deprived rn so i'm gonna try to put it in a way that my brain can comprehend when it's barely able to function

 

 

I know you're tired but please read the actual post I quoted and responded to, which was not the initial post.

[Koko Ricky]

I think some of you are conflating "extremely large data set" with "infinite data set" in terms of finding the "bottom layer." An infinite data set would involve infinite regression, but we seem to encounter simpler and simpler systems as we zoom in. In my opinion, running out of information feels more plausible than there being more complexity underneath, because so far everything tells us that any given system becomes less complex as it is probed. That doesn't mean this assumption is correct--not by a longshot--but I cannot think of a reason why you wouldn't run out of information after repeated probing. Therein lies the paradox--if you eventually reach nothing, you cannot power the universe on nothing. Or at least it doesn't seem that way. I'm certainly open to the idea that more secret layers are currently hidden from view.

Edited March 27 by Koko Ricky

[Wo0p]

You're being cosmically absurd.

 

The fact that "nothingness" can be considered to be a paradox is a symptom of lacking understanding of reality. So there is your answer. There is no paradox, only the lack of ability to observe or experiment with every facet of reality (Which would have propelled our technological level far beyond 0.72 on the Kardashev scale at the current time of this conversations existence... ergo we're not there yet).

 

Maybe our current understanding of "nothingness" is not a set paradoxical point, but a tipping point where the universe turns itself inside out and plays a role in explaining dark energy, dark matter, white holes (No you) and all the other theoretical sci-fi buzzwords floating around. 

 

And I wouldn't be surprised if "nothingness" is simply a human creation whose function it is to push away the madness that is the concept of it. And instead there -are- no states of nothingness in the universe, but rather a spectrum of being. Like a point of observation that shows a primordial slurry-sludge of matter and energy constantly in flux until they form whatever the current level of theoretical matter is at its most zoomed in (Im not a scientist so I dunno... is it quarks?).

 

It seems to me that most if not everything in physics and in the natural world lie on a spectrum and we fallible human beings love to put things into neat little boxes and shuffle the names of those boxes around until they fit our current scope of observational ability; but it is not the true state of being: a solid is a fluid is a plasma is a wavelength is a particle.

 

Also...

 

Spoiler

 

^{This reply is meant as partly tongue-in-cheek. Please approach it with some levity. Thanks!}

[roadworx]

okay! i got a single hour of sleep and am thus very prepared to discuss...quantum physics...

 

to add onto what everyone else is saying, i think that, even if we have reached the end and we literally cannot go any farther and there is what amounts to almost nothing at any given point of observation at that level, i still can't see that as truly being "nothing". there's still something there (strings, going off of what you said) even if rather negligible, that all adds up to form the something that's seemingly poofing out of thin air. just because we don't understand it or have yet to decode it doesn't mean that it's "nothing", and i think it's foolish to call that which we don't understand "nothing".

[Wahrnehmungskrieg]

12 hours ago, Koko Ricky said:

If we take me, as a singular entity, we can say that I comprise a complex system of various interacting atoms. If we strip down to just a single hydrogen atom, we lose quite a bit of information, reducing our system now to just a single electron, a single proton, and their properties. We eliminate more information by zooming in and focusing on the proton. If we crack it open, a quark-gluon plasma can be detected, and we were able to crack that open, we might find the theoretical strings of string theory; one-dimensional filaments vibrating in a high-dimensional membrane. However, the string is already one-dimensional; there's not really a way to break it down further that we know of.

 

In a sense, at this point you run out of properties by which to describe something. The more we zoom in, the less information is present. It would almost seem as though attempting to dissect the string would show us nothing at all, as quantum mechanics implies that there isn't really anything physical that can be detected at small enough scales, with strings supposedly occupying that scale space. 

 

The great contradiction here is that, if there is nothing to be found by zooming all the way in, then something must account for there being a starting point at which properties (such as spin, mass, charge, etc.) begin to emerge. However, while emergence from nothingness causes thinky brain pain, the same is true for proposing any starting point, as we naturally want there to be a mechanism that allows the starting point to emerge. Thus, there is a paradox of nothingness here; asserting nothing at the bottom layer feels as mysterious a proposition as asserting a starting point.

 

EDIT: A third and equally frustrating potential is infinite regression, where any starting point can be preceded by an even smaller starting point, embedded inside the larger one.

 

One thing being missed here is that by 'splitting the atom' etc to observe it you're discounting the splitting, you're discarding the fact that you split the atom to look inside it. That too, that travelling inside the atom, is information. The atomic relation is information. If we're considering 'basic building blocks' of stuff then we have to consider the fact by our successively passing through greater stages of observation that we notice the links and relations between these building blocks. If we deny that anything more complex than a string (which is remarkably complex, fwiw, given it can vibrate at whatever frequency it pleases) exists, we still have to consider that strings together are more than the sum of their parts through their spatiotemporal relations. If you don't believe that, here's a counterexample: if Jesus' Sermon on the Mount had happened now instead of 2k years ago, would not the world be different? Therefore spatiotemporal relations do matter. (and I don't think that spatiotemporality can be broken down... even if discrete it still exists)

 

When we notice a difference between stark observation and common sense, at some point we have to ask why that is the case, why common sense would produce a different answer. Maybe the answer would fill a book but there would be a reason to think that more than collected strings.

 

A good thing to look into here is some mereology, and given most people who study it don't end up biting the bullet on that account (ie a decent amount of people agree that complex objects, like tables, exist) there's no reason when framing the rather similar question wrt quantum physics to assume that the situation would suddenly be different

 

[⇛Marnetmar⇛]

I think that if we zoom in enough we'll find what are essentially just points with basic properties like spin and charge but which otherwise don't even exist as actual entities in the same way subatomic particles do, but rather only exist in terms of the aforementioned properties, which is really just rephrasing OP but, to go really galaxy brained here, if declaring variables in programming is nothing more than stating "this is a thing that exists and is stored somewhere" then how much of a stretch is it to assume that something similar could apply to our own existence?

 

Hell maybe subatomic particles don't exist as actual entities either but are instead only the emergent properties of a bunch of the subatomic particles below them coming together, but it is through successive hierarchies of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules etc that something we experience as existence emerges, and existence is actually just the whole sum of parts that themselves don't "exist" in the way our monkey brains like to think they do. So in a sense something does, in fact, come from nothing.

Edited March 28 by ⇛Marnetmar⇛

[OliveTree]

id argue that zooming out is disastrous in the same ways. you arguably gain more information but the underlying strata of it becomes lost. If we focus on a single person as a whole entity with no interior, we would have to define them by their context, their gravitational effect on other entities, the channels that connect them to other entities. ETC. take a human heart. You could imagine a heart as a single entity but its purpose and mechanics are not obvious without discovering the other organs connected to it. then you might need to know of the existence of a skeleton. What of a rib cage? it protects the heart from what? then you're forced to expand outside the body to understand its purpose. But how far out of the body is necessary? A human body has a gravitational effect. It's acted by larger gravitational forces as well, is that larger mass a part of it, necessary to understand it? That larger mass is the earth, which of course is also acted on by the gravity of the Sun. And understanding the sun at a macro level requires us to understand its formation which sort of forces back to a micro level. At what point in that process did we zoom out too far to meaningfully understand a single person as an entity? IS there an arbitrary "zoomed out enough" to match a theoretical arbitrary "zoomed in enough"?

[MrFlibble]

This discussion makes me think of this picture:

I've never been good at understanding even "regular" physics (apart from what you gain by hands-on experience with the physical world, that is), much less so anything related to quantum physics. But somehow I don't find the notion of something arising from "nothingness" (at the level where you broke down matter into the smallest possible building block) that much of a paradox (although that might be just because of my ignorance).

 

Perhaps the paradox lies in the very assumption that it is at all possible to break the smallest building block into something else? What if you can only destroy it, as in, it completely ceases to exists/converts into energy and dissipates (sorry if this is total BS from the scientific standpoint)? If that's a possibility, then you would indeed end up with literally nothing, I guess.

[EraserheadBaby]

20 hours ago, Koko Ricky said:

The paradox is that you run out of information the more you zoom in to something.

"An expert is a person who knows more and more about less and less." -idfk who said that.

[rita remton]

On 3/27/2024 at 3:05 PM, Koko Ricky said:

If we take me...

 

umm... i don't fully comprehend what you are talking about (with all the strings theory, spin, charge, quantum thingy, etc), but are you implying the existence of god? imo simply logically put, nothing could be created out of absolute nothingness (dimensions (x,y,z)=0, empty space still has dimensions) anyway, even for a small piece of string, right? or i'm wrong as usual :P

[Zerofuchs]

Here's an interesting dive into how low the nothing hole goes:

 

From a physical science perspective, I would say nothing is an empty spacetime at maximum possible entropy. A pure vacuum, as it were. This is probably the closest we'll get to "nothing" that can be observed. Diving below that into quantum strangeness is not really useful until someone figures out how to observe physics below the Planck scale.