What is "Nothing"?

  Рет қаралды 454,005

Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 6 746
Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine Hossenfelder 2 ай бұрын
Hi all! I have a free science newsletter that goes out once per week to which you can subscribe here sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ If you have a topic for a video to suggest, the best way is to reply to the newsletter. I *do* read as many comments as I can. But, well, it's kind of hard to keep track.
Administrator
Administrator 6 күн бұрын
Answer: Because Nothing is unstable. If you start with Nothing, there's no rules governing it, and such instability must fluctuate, and since there's Nothing, its first fluctuation must result in Something. Boom, we're out of the trap.
dhill4001
dhill4001 12 күн бұрын
Level 11 nothing cannot be discussed because it has no characteristics...including having no name.....Oh, wait....
Joshua Karr
Joshua Karr 28 күн бұрын
@Sabine Hossenfelder It's the _love of_ money that's the root of all evil. Jesus loves you.
Dan Quayles ITS SPELT POTATOE!
Dan Quayles ITS SPELT POTATOE! Ай бұрын
Weird I have a level ten! that you havent taken care of!
Moses Exodus
Moses Exodus Ай бұрын
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing (0) "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" (0) IS "Something" (1); because, it comes from "Something" (1). Moreover, since Nothing (0 perceived) is not Nothing (0 actual), then it is possible for Something (1) to come from Nothing (0 actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (0 actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).
Psychx
Psychx 2 ай бұрын
"Virtual particle pairs are like couples you've never heard of that pop up in your newsfeed, destroy each other and disappear back into nothing, … except with maths" - This one killed me, thanks Sabine!
Mr マックラ
Mr マックラ Ай бұрын
Perfect analogy
oldmandrake
oldmandrake Ай бұрын
I was waiting for a big yellow Pac-Man to come (from nothing) and eat the moving dots. lol
lx
lx Ай бұрын
wtf I read this as soon as she started speaking through it
Argon Sol
Argon Sol Ай бұрын
Me going into Facebook for the first time in 5 years.
Doors_Fan2011
Doors_Fan2011 Ай бұрын
Are you dead?
neino36
neino36 Ай бұрын
I understood nothing and I absolutely loved every second of it.
Jean Taylor
Jean Taylor 17 күн бұрын
@neino36 'But the chickens are not organised!'
neino36
neino36 Ай бұрын
@Tethloach1 I'm a firm believer in the chicken.
Tethloach1
Tethloach1 Ай бұрын
chicken or egg? No answer
Mr マックラ
Mr マックラ Ай бұрын
There's 2 layers to this comment 😂
Green World
Green World Ай бұрын
I love this comment thank you so much for writing it
Dj
Dj Ай бұрын
"Like most videos on KZpost, this video is about nothing." That has to be the most accurate thing I've ever heard
Kontratovici Emma
Kontratovici Emma 20 сағат бұрын
I gotta admit, I got totally lost at level 5 and started to zone out and left my mind wander (damn limited understanding of Physics lmao)
popskull42
popskull42 Ай бұрын
No matter how much you remove from the box, your nothing still has boundaries. But if you remove the boundaries, something rushes in to fill the nothing. So it's impossible to have nothing.
Classic Science Fiction & Horror
Classic Science Fiction & Horror Ай бұрын
Put differently, nothing is impossible.
Hannah Schneyder
Hannah Schneyder Ай бұрын
@Ruchunteur that device sounds like it's straight from the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. I would love to read about it.
Ruchunteur
Ruchunteur Ай бұрын
everytime something rush in just remove it until there is nothing left in the entire universe to rush in.
gastronic
gastronic 2 ай бұрын
Imagine half a million members coming here for nothing.
Tethloach1
Tethloach1 Ай бұрын
why is there something ? I can't answer that.
marco a. l. lobo
marco a. l. lobo Ай бұрын
This is called Spiritual Cleanning.
Alpha Ωmega Man
Alpha Ωmega Man Ай бұрын
Yes, that's Truly Something!😁 Mike in San Diego.🌞🎸🚀🖖
leveronj
leveronj Ай бұрын
You have gone down a rediculous myopic rabbit hole. You have given me a friggin CARDBOARD BOX!!!
Library of Hyperion
Library of Hyperion Ай бұрын
Underrated comment
oldmandrake
oldmandrake Ай бұрын
Thank You, Sabine, for treating varying philosophies and beliefs with respect, as you in fact continue helping all groups learn more, and even become more excited about science. :)
MrAuswest
MrAuswest 27 күн бұрын
Hi Sabine, Thanks for Nothing! Loved your video which helps clarify how little most of us actually know about Nothing even though we may use the term frequently (and frequently inaccurately). I've been working on my own personal philosophy working from 'Nothing' and starting on up from there. So, imagine Nothing is ALL there is, no matter, mass, energy, observers, observations, interactions, just limitless, completely empty of everything Nothing. Nothing is the ONLY 'thing' the only one 'thing' (or is that none thing?) This would be indistinguishable from a uniform limitless 'thing' that is constant universally. Nothing then is nothing, one thing and everything, all at the same time. And if that were the true case then we don't exist and we are all just figments of Nothing's imagination - which it could not have as that destroys the concept of no observation or observations etc. Also if Nothing and One thing are indistinguishable from each other there could then be a minimum of two 'things' and we could in theory go on to have an infinite number of 'One Things' that are unlimited by time or distance and none of them would be able to interact with any of the others. But what if one thing was the exact opposite of Nothing and for some reason they were inextricably bound together... I wonder what the result might be?
Adam Dylan Major
Adam Dylan Major 17 күн бұрын
Maybe God is the ultimate Nothing that's a barrier against things getting back to Nothing. Rather than creating, Nothing would simply sustain anything and avoid that being equated with it at all costs. I can conceive of a Nothing that fits this idea, which is where you can ask questions but Nothing could give an answer to the questions
Timothy Girkin
Timothy Girkin Ай бұрын
Could nothingness be considered a form of existence itself, I wonder? Also, will nothing stay as it is? Even if there are no possibilities, will that remain the case? Who knows? For me, it's a pretty interesting thing to think about. I guess we'll find out eventually... possibly.
Hannah Schneyder
Hannah Schneyder Ай бұрын
I've been binging your channel since I've discovered it a few days ago. I love how you give every idea a fair chance! I also have a subject request: would you be interested in covering the idea of "Elektrosmog"? Somebody I know claims to be very sensitive to it, and I am sceptical about the whole concept (not her symptoms, but the way she attributes them to electromagnetic pollution or whatever). But since I've watched your video on 5G, I think that maybe I shouldn't dismiss her idea off-hand.
Uwe Trode
Uwe Trode Ай бұрын
Hello Sabine. This is by far one my favorite episodes. Thank you. I've had an idea rattling around my brain for a couple of decades now, that this episode seems to validate in some fashion. My thought experiment suggests that when you have nothing, you are left with nothing but possibility. I think you said as much also. Then I wondered if in the absence of time, presumably the condition prior to the big bang, if an "infinite amount of time" is actually indistinguishable from "instantaneousness." If we could agree on that, then given just the possibility of a particle popping into existence out of nothing would be a 100 percent surety since all other possibilities (like nothing happening at all for instance) will have been exhausted -- throughout an infinite eternity of nothing happening having played itself out. In my mind, the instant "nothingness" is achieved somehow, "somethingness" must instantaneously show up to fill the void. I'd love to hear some future thoughts that explore this further. ps. Love your videos. Alles gute, Uwe
M. L. Hunt
M. L. Hunt 21 күн бұрын
As someone who has occasionally felt compelled to read a bit into ontology, this was one of the most interesting explorations of this subject I've encountered.
OCCULT BASS
OCCULT BASS Ай бұрын
Love this video, the concept of nothing haunted me when I was younger, very nice to have these different levels explained like this, and your sense of humor really made it fun too :) Thank you for all you do!
Mountain Fisher
Mountain Fisher Ай бұрын
Nothing= not anything or non-existence. There you go a definition of nothing that is absolute. Someone once told me nothing is what sleeping rocks dream of, if you want to be poetic about it.
Rasmus Mølck Nilsson
Rasmus Mølck Nilsson Ай бұрын
There is still something in the box: the 9th level of nothing is in the box. They said they wanted nothing for their birthday but you gave them something that has at least a definition. We can talk about it so clearly it is something :)
John Rendle
John Rendle 2 ай бұрын
Sabine is getting better and better- hilariously scientific and scientifically hilarious. Don’t you just love her! She’s fabulous. This video on nothing must be one of her best ones.
Cap Compass
Cap Compass Ай бұрын
@PraiseDog Science is seriously SERIOUS! Science is the art of Measuration. If it can't be measured, it's not SCIENTIFIC. How does one measure humour? As a teacher, I have often found that light humour can enlighten not just children, but also those of any age without understanding or even interest in a subject much easier than 2,000 pages. LIGHTen up.
LINDA YOUNG
LINDA YOUNG Ай бұрын
@PraiseDog ... Say what?
Coloradoing
Coloradoing 2 ай бұрын
@PraiseDog Ha. Disabling the likes in your own crappy videos. Show some integrity, buddy.
PraiseDog
PraiseDog 2 ай бұрын
I feel the opposite. She used to display a little dry humor which I liked. Now she has joined the legion who build the presentations around a comedy routine. I doubt it is her doing. I find it distracting and annoying. Modern audiences are like little children I guess, you need to entertain them to get them to listen.
Daryl Marsden
Daryl Marsden Ай бұрын
I have watched a few of Sabine's videos and they all make me laugh, I like her sense of humour; at 8:34 this one cracked me up. I also agree that something cannot come from nothing and how can we trust scientists who come up with incomprehensible formulas. Thank you, Sabine, for presenting information in an understandable way.
Cheepchipsable
Cheepchipsable 29 күн бұрын
I can see that clip coming up on Apologist channels - "Even a scientist says you can't trust other scientists!"
Shane Appeldorn
Shane Appeldorn Ай бұрын
You did a really good job of explaining it, you broke down every concept and made it easier for some to understand. "True nothing" is the absence of all concepts and possibilities, therefore "nothing" will never exist, and there will always be something, there is no conceivable possibilities that allow "nothing" to exist.
It's moot, damnit not mute
It's moot, damnit not mute 8 күн бұрын
Love your channel, your content and the honest delivery spiced with dry humour Sabine. I remember a period in the '80s when physics and eastern philosophy/religion started dating. (I think) Fritjof Capra started it with 'The Tao of Physics'. There were others as well such as Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" . Books such as these were generally entertaining/thoughtful without going too von Daniken in how they presented their material. This reminded me how much I enjoyed the intersection of physics and philosophy.
Paul Toro
Paul Toro 15 сағат бұрын
Level 1 nothing is still the most fundamental if it means no objects or processes. It undercuts the physics you sneak in by patronizing "ordinary language" that still knows air molecules are objects and so don't satisfy the no objects definition.
Mike Morris
Mike Morris 2 ай бұрын
It's amazing that Sabine has the ability to make us think very deeply about nothing at all. Now that, is something!
Filipe Albuquerque
Filipe Albuquerque 28 күн бұрын
You statement is confusing...my take is that Sabina made us think about something that pseudo portrays itself as nothing as a valid concept, but by definition cannot be, and that is a waste of time for intelligent people and sadly very useful for 99% of pseudo intellectuals and scientists trying to make money out of nonsense...by the way the empty set has to go! Maths also need some hammering on its conceptual foundations...
Blue Skies
Blue Skies Ай бұрын
@Cap Compass Thank you!
Cap Compass
Cap Compass Ай бұрын
@Blue Skies Dire Staits.
Pan Diaxik
Pan Diaxik Ай бұрын
@Blue Skies Nothing isn't free. It's pretty expensive co create 17th century vacuum, let alone level 9 nothing
Blue Skies
Blue Skies Ай бұрын
Something from nothing and nothing is free.
Open-Source Anarchist
Open-Source Anarchist Ай бұрын
This feels like what I ended up with after reading Jim Holt's book "Why Does the World Exist". Any answer presupposes a framework of *something* and it feels like Gödel's incompleteness theorems prevent any sort of "Unified theory" that pertains to our specific universe if a multiverse exists (which seems intuitive). Perhaps we're just a simulation of another species' whim, but what would evidence even look like if that were the case? I absolutely love physics, but I hope we get natural philosophy back as a unification of "physics" and "metaphysics"
Sailing El Azul
Sailing El Azul Ай бұрын
Brilliant! My answers just turned into tomes. Thanking you for pointing to ways to understand all the way to the actor on the quantum fluctuation. Seems vital, self evident to better understand nothingness since the universe also came from the general direction of nothing.
yourself88xbl
yourself88xbl Ай бұрын
I remember taking acid and on the come up remembering a conversation about the wetness of water with my brother in law. This led me to a completely different understanding about what nothing might be or not be.
Frank McCann
Frank McCann Ай бұрын
Got an effect of a weird nature at level 3. Interesting and informative video as usual. Thanks.
Sean P
Sean P 2 ай бұрын
Pulling so much content from nothing is really something. Keep up the great work!
LittleFluffy Bushbaby
LittleFluffy Bushbaby 2 ай бұрын
Doh! Something from nothing. Wish I'd said that.
TeaParty1776
TeaParty1776 2 ай бұрын
@mj 73 Exactly. See The Logical Leap by David Harriman. Science is basically induction from conceptualized perceptions of concretes, not deductions based on the arbitrary.
mj 73
mj 73 2 ай бұрын
Once upon a time it was called fantasie and imagination. No it's called science.
opa laa
opa laa Ай бұрын
Hey Sabine, very cool video. I assume you are acquainted with the kabbalist ideas of Ain, Ain Soph and Ain Soph Aur, but just in case you aren't, you may be interested in checking them out. They're very ancient ideas of the different levels of nothing, and how something has to appear out of them by way of necessity, because otherwise various paradoxes have to remain unresolved.
Golden Knowledge
Golden Knowledge Ай бұрын
Thank you for posting this. I think a deep dive is needed into “nothing”.
mark paterson
mark paterson 2 ай бұрын
I love you, Sabine, you're fantastic. You make me smile as standard, yet you give dry comments that make me howl. Keep making videos!
Nor B
Nor B Ай бұрын
Outstanding video as always. The answer I've liked best posits that the absolute potential must have expressions as it can't be absolute otherwise. This is of course more along the lines of philosophy rather than physics, considers the perspective of consciousness without an object, and reverses the concept of nothing to it's equivalent everything, but I still like it. I also like the tautology of the weak anthropic principle, and like to hope for something along the lines of the strong anthropic principle, but that's just my temperament talking.
Mark Ignatovich
Mark Ignatovich 2 ай бұрын
I spent half of the video laughing. Both at the non-chalant delivery of humor, and the absolutely absurd directions I would never have imagined going myself. I mean that as compliment - she kept subverting my expectations all I could do was enjoy the ride. Brilliant combination of education and entertainment.
Kevin Cleary
Kevin Cleary Ай бұрын
I enjoyed the eloquence of your and other comments almost as much as the video.
desertviewer
desertviewer Ай бұрын
Thanks for your discussion on “nothing”. Will you please now discuss “thing”? Specifically, the notion that “particles “ are “standing waves” or “ripples” in their respective “fields”, each such particle-type having its own kind of field, is threatening the foundations of classical Atheism- that this is a “material” universe.
CosmosNut
CosmosNut Ай бұрын
I am so grateful for your videos, the content, work to create them.
Hovant
Hovant 18 күн бұрын
Careful! Once you removed quantum fields and virtual particles, the low energy state might spill out of the box through vacuum decay! This is why you should always store nothing in a vacuum flask.
Mandar Joshi
Mandar Joshi Ай бұрын
Curious ! What was left in the box after removing space ? :) What happened *after* removing time from the box ? :)
spurdo sparde
spurdo sparde 2 ай бұрын
this is the cutest thought experiment I've heard in a while, you literally just wanted to give your friend an absolute nothing box to make them happy for their birthday. It might break everything in the universe but atleast you gave your friend what they wanted :)
enoph Jimenez
enoph Jimenez Ай бұрын
no but then its not.... 'nothing', its still a birthday present, what they wanted. Even tho that shouldn't be possible-
Michaela Meyer
Michaela Meyer Ай бұрын
Well, they would still get the box though, which is something. But at least now we all know to better not give an "empty" box to someone who wants NOTHING 😂😂😂
Cliffeny Prize
Cliffeny Prize Ай бұрын
When you break it down like that, it really is :D
theseustoo
theseustoo Ай бұрын
My point about 'still having the box' is that everything exists in some place... i.e. a specific location. In order to have your 9th level of nothing, it therefore cannot exist in any place, because the place itself is something (i.e. time/space) so you're knocked back several levels and don't have 'nothing'... What this means, logically, is that nothing can only 'exist' nowhere, so nothing is nowhere. But to say 'nothing is nowhere' automatically implies 'everything is somewhere'. Or, to be a tad more grammatically correct: nothing doesn't exist anywhere. Put more simply, perhaps, nothing is non-existence, but non-existence has one very peculiar quality: It doesn't exist! Except, of course, ,as an abstract concept... but here we are again, right back at 'something', since, as you already pointed out, abstract concepts are 'somethings'... It seems like chasing the concept of nothing very much resembles a dog chasing its own tail... ;)
ozgipsy
ozgipsy Ай бұрын
This channel is my discovery of the year so far. Deadpan science, brilliant.
Renko
Renko 6 күн бұрын
Fantastic video. It only makes sense to me that the universe is level 9, empty of all but possibility. Where would anything else come from but possibility? And possibility or potential would always exist. Possibility interacts with itself to the point where, in pockets, it becomes conscious and aware of it. As a long time Zen practitioner, I am familiar with this as The Great Void.
Akash raj
Akash raj 2 ай бұрын
In set theory numbers are created using different sets of null sets. Which is mind-blowing. Just like that, nothing can be packaged as a set to create something (at least from a mathematical point of view).
Una
Una Ай бұрын
I reached the same conclusions a long time ago. The prologue to the Tau te Ching speaks of this, akso, as well as her possiible tenth level of nothing where if you talk about it is something. "the Named is the mother of the ten thousand things." I have a somewhat more practical answer for it. Whatever you call what we are and what we are in it is something so there must be at least one possibilty. Therefore, there can't be nothing. Its a contradiction in terms. I could go on, but I will stop there.
Octokok
Octokok Ай бұрын
Something that feels related to Nothingness is the presence of relations to other things. For example, on a certain level of Nothing, space and time were removed, but Nothing was still said to be *inside* of that box. It was still connected and relatable to the universe around it. I don't want to get caught up on the gift box analogy and its absurdities, though, so instead imagine all of creation, whatever it is, and how systems may be related to others hierarchically. To make things easier (since we know so little about how "creation" works when it comes to entire universes), pretend that simulation theory is valid, and you have systems creating other systems. With this view, there can be yet another characteristic of Nothing to remove, a Nothing with no parent creator, a thing that has no connection to any other thing.
myssree1
myssree1 Ай бұрын
Remaining solemn and serious all through and yet make every word funny is a rare talent ❤️
Red Sonya
Red Sonya 20 күн бұрын
This talent is usually reserved for those of British persuation...
Rocky Wang
Rocky Wang Ай бұрын
I literally learned nothing from your video, and thank you Sabine for nothing😁😁😁(of course I was joking for nothing lol. It is quite inspirational to elaborate something from nothing)
Theophrastus3.0
Theophrastus3.0 2 ай бұрын
Sabine is the only person I’d tune into to hear about nothing.
John Haller
John Haller 2 ай бұрын
She knows how to pronounce clothes in English, without it sounding like "Closes" An all round Talent and good looker too!
PrivateSi
PrivateSi 2 ай бұрын
THERE IS ONLY ONE LEVEL OF NOTHING... Don't tune in to me, but try to prove the following impossible and you'll be lying to yourself.. Sabine is very wrong on this one. Liberal BS. I expect 5% to 20% Liberal nonsense from Sabine, but she's full of it here, liberally stretching a term to MEANINGLESSNESS (or MEANING STUPIDLY OVERLOADED).. I don't like to have to say this about Sabine, but she deserves it on this topic.. She's up there with Krauss.. worse even. -- You can disagree with the exact nature of my universe model if you like, but the levels work in the Standard Model also... There is only 1 LEVEL OF NOTHING - and its very likely physically impossible in a hypothetical multiverse, let alone our / The Universe, that is definitely something.. Definitely a WAVE MEDIUM and MATTER-ENERGY FIELD. -- Level 0 Nothing is absolutely the only true form of 'nothing'. Complete lack of existence of anything, including time & space. -- Level 1 'Nothing' is NOT NOTHING! It is non-persistent space, with no temporal pattern to its intermittent existence... -- Level 2 'Nothing' is ALSO SOMETHING! It is The Electro-Positronic EM Wave Field Medium at a complete standstill, frozen in time, none of the tiny +ve space-ball base quanta close-packed into a crystal by freef-lowing, compressible, displace-abe -ve electro-gas move in the slightest. -- Level 3 Nothing is JUST LIGHT - The crystal ball universe's space-balls move on their spot -- Level 4 SOMETHING is most definitely NOT NOTHING! It is kicked out of place +ve space-balls and the excess -ve electro-gas left behind being repelled into a BALL by the super-balanced surrounding field that does not want the excess charge the POSITRON and ELECTRON try to spit out, nor does is ant to lose charge the P.tron & E.tron try to pull in, resulting in a vibrational tug-of-war. -- Electrons and positrons are in Protons and Neutrons. +2 or -2, +3 or -3 balls decay into electrons & positrons when they slow down (by getting close to matter). All charge and mass equations balance this way, including Muons and Taus, let alone Positrons and Neutrons.. Quarks are confused mistakes, as is QCD. The fact all the ideas mentioned here can be shown to be theoretically possible while fitting the evidence is NOT NOTHING. -- A load of zealots abandoned materialism and embraced 'Energism' and got very lost on the way, physically speaking, fundamentally.
Paula
Paula 2 ай бұрын
@Crowemagnum .... So I just got back from watching this chair video... I am equal parts mind blown and extremely confused. I feel all... universe-y.. ... We are death.. We are the scattering.. o.o Thanks for the random comment! lol
Marvin Hacking
Marvin Hacking 2 ай бұрын
Her nothing has a lot of sumthin , in my view . . . which may or may not be worth weighting and measuring in the long scheme of useful information . meaning my assumption not her`s ~ : @!?
Cyberplayer5
Cyberplayer5 2 ай бұрын
Now that's not nothing.🙂
EOTH AMEC
EOTH AMEC Ай бұрын
This feels like a clue to what Idris is onto in the “eyes of the void” book by Adrian Tchaikovsky
Thomas Pysz
Thomas Pysz Ай бұрын
What an interesting presentation. Well done. It makes you really re-think twice about all the Quantum Physics and Origin of the Universe videos on line. Are they real or is someone pulling your chain? Even Einstein had to think twice! Spooky!
SaLo
SaLo Ай бұрын
You remind me a lot of Mathologer, from your mannerisms to your accent to your very easy-to-understand way of explaining things.
Josiah Enns
Josiah Enns Ай бұрын
Interesting video! I love this topic, because it shows how much we all assume all the time. I'm very interested in how you decided on the order of levels 7 and 8. I'm not a mathematician in any sense of the word, but I'm having a hard time understanding how mathematics or any such abstract concept could be said to "exist" at a more fundamental level than the mind necessary to conceptualize such things?
Magic Gonads
Magic Gonads Ай бұрын
@Josiah Enns In case 2. it erupts from material reality by some rules, so those rules exist regardless of the 'kernel' of the material reality that it erupts from. So those rules (let's say mathematics for example) are prior to the observers that are 'erupted'. In case 1, we can consider this being a separate sort to the minds excluded in earlier nothings since by the nature of this thing it transcends material reality anyway.
Josiah Enns
Josiah Enns Ай бұрын
You are right that something needs to sit under the constructions, but it seems to me that the underlying basis for a socially constructed reality 1. intentionally comes from some kind of other being or 2. spontaneously erupts from material reality. (personally, and I know this is undergirded by metric tons of assumptions, I suspect both may be the actual explanation simultaneously). In either case though, 7 would be more foundational than 8 in my ordinal list of nothings. In the case of option 1, it would be reversed as the intentions of a being could in no way maintain existence without that being, in the case of option 2, such spontaneous eruptions would need to be removed before physical reality which erupts them.
Magic Gonads
Magic Gonads Ай бұрын
@Josiah Enns I think if we leave everything to be socially constructed then we have a fundamental void in the event of a single observer (who may teach a language to themselves for the purpose of remembering their thoughts or rigidly computing things), that nevertheless can navigate the universe for whatever reason that the universe seems to exist to them. A society exists by a product of whatever underlying things brings us to the point where one can so there must be something that is not socially constructed first. But I do agree that many conventions can be shaken for example which mathematical foundation or axioms we hold as true, and which formal logic philosophies we think make sense, and beyond that which scientific theories we think are reasonable (or are just spitefully the best explanation despite being unreasonable (the many paradoxes of quantum mechanics and general relativity and how they don't work together)), etc... and it gets more and more ambiguous the more specific and higher level the theory becomes, for example I have many reasons to doubt the common conceptions of statistics (there are internal disputes: frequentist, bayesian, bias-free etc, and people too blindly trust low significance results in papers due to the scarcity of high value data) and economics (do we trust centuries of capitalist dogma?).
Josiah Enns
Josiah Enns Ай бұрын
​@Magic Gonads That's probably the fundamental difference between our perspectives then. I'm coming from a more "social construction of reality" side of things--the idea that our names for and assumed divisions and connections of things persist outside any perception of them (be that by physical or non-physical beings) seems absurd to me.
Magic Gonads
Magic Gonads Ай бұрын
@Josiah Enns More to the main point, I don't think concepts can exist without agents to think of them, rather that the abstract fundamental logical structure that these concepts map onto exists, and is instanced by those concepts when an agent conceives of them. I guess this is a very loose form of platonism, I don't claim that there's an ideal world where these things 'exist' as tangible unique objects, just that there are connections between abstract things that are fundamentally always there, no matter what you remove. You can formalise this idea using category theory, but I don't have all the details. But essentially it's not important what the "things" being connected are, just that the connections are there, and those connections themselves have connections, etc... Maybe a tangible example is that of the universal turing machine. Every turing complete language is able to express exactly the same computations as any other, no more, no less, because they all are abstractly equivalent, but that also this class is self-contained because a turing complete language is able to model any turing complete language, exemplified by turing machines that run turing machines. We can think of multiple abstract meta-languages as also being equivalent this way, but they are not accessible to us, but any language, universe, ideal etc has to be somehow included in it, because they are self-contained.
Joe Antonelli
Joe Antonelli 2 ай бұрын
The paradox that keeps me up at night isn't the notion of nothing, but rather how Sabine can be so ordinary in her delivery, and yet produce such engaging content at the same time. (I promise this is a compliment, haha - great video!)
Cap Compass
Cap Compass Ай бұрын
This is possibly one of the funniest science videos I have watched (and not a smile). Next video "The Infinities of Infinity". If you turn Infinity into a fraction (one over infinity) there is/are infinity fractions between each whole number. How say you?
Steve Pittman
Steve Pittman Ай бұрын
It's that low-key sense of humor that does it for me.
Nadie
Nadie Ай бұрын
it's a video about nothing
Jamie G
Jamie G 2 ай бұрын
dead pan humor is a real talent 🤣
Scott Schmit
Scott Schmit 2 ай бұрын
I was thinking about that and it would super neat to see out takes of her breaking character.
Zink Zink
Zink Zink Ай бұрын
Sabine I hope you read this and I'd really love your input on my theory below. I've only recently discovered you, but I admire your willingness to challenge assumptions. I got really lost in the weeds trying to write this, but I really hope you bear with me and this wall of text. It may sound random and meandering, but I promise you that everything I say is all holistically related to my point. While I'm not well educated my mind doesn't function the way most human minds do and if I could only capture my thoughts in a coherent form I think I'd be onto something. I wish I could understand math to try and prove it, but math makes no sense to me. I can only think in "fuzzy" metaphorical terms, nothing is absolute or 100% True/False to me, ever. I see everything as gradients of superpositions. For example: My answer to the "Ship of Theseus" thought experiment is "Yes". The Ships of Theseus are both the Ship of Theseus and what defines the "Ship of Theseus" are both ships. To me the question of "which is the REAL Ship of Theseus" is moot, because both ships are one and the same. For comparison: you are you, but who were you 20 years ago? You were still you, it was merely the definition of you that changed over time. Now-you isn't you relative to past-you, but regardless you are still inarguably you and always were. The first time I heard about the Feigenbaum constant I thought: "well of course, wasn't that already obvious to everyone? Given enough time Chaos repeats, I thought that was a known." The Feigenbaum constant merely confirmed something that I already knew my entire life. Not that I'm saying I'm a genius, far from it, just demonstrating that some concepts that are novel to many just seem like obvious common sense to me. [On a silly side-note, I also think the Feigenbaum constant is inaccurate along with our numbering system; I think the "real" Feigenbaum constant rather than 4.669, is actually a superposition of both 4 and 5 and that if our numbering system was accurate that the Feigenbaum constant would have shown as 4.5 or (4 = 5 != 4)(I am aware that "formula" is paradoxical, but that's part of my point: the numbering system is inherently flawed and can't reconcile the actual number, because it's two numbers co-existing)] I'm more of a philosopher than physicist, mostly cause I'm terrible at math, but here's my theory, FINALLY lol. We already have a working metaphorical model for - Something, Not-Something, and the defining line between the two: positive numbers, negative numbers, and 0. I'm of the belief that after level 9 Nothing "everything" becomes inverted, like an Hour-Glass. The Quantum Vacuum is the 0 point; it is where both "reality" and "unreality" meet; that's why it's so "fuzzy" and chaotic, in that place reality and unreality are constantly interacting or trying to interact at least, like oil and water. The spontaneous quantum fluctuations are spikes in either direction of reality and unreality. Space-Time is symmetrical. In my theoretical unreality everything that "is" is what "isn't" in reality, and vice versa. In other words each are defined by what the other lacks. EVERYTHING is relatively symmetrical and a-symmetrical because to define what something IS you must also be able to define what that thing ISN'T, hence all things must have an inverted counterpart, hence the Universe and Reality must also have a counter-Universe and unreality. There must always be an opposite. I'm not talking about "Evil Twins" or anything like that, it's more like Negative Space in Art or the opposing sound waves that Noise Canceling headphones produce. In my unreality you aren't even you and I'm not even me; our counterparts can't exist because we do exist. Our Universe as we know it doesn't exist in unreality, but at the same time everything that our Universe isn't does exist in unreality. Similar to parallel Universes, except expanded to all of reality that parallel's itself. In other words there is 1(-1)=0 (un)Realities "existing" as inverted symmetrical superpositions. Now that I think about it I suppose my theory is just Newton's Third Law taken to it's logical final conclusion. If every force must have an equal and opposite reaction then it only seems logical that all matter, existence, and concepts must also have an equal and opposite existence. We can't divide by 0 because 0 isn't really a number, even metaphorically. 0 is the end and beginning of reality and unreality. 0 is merely the concept of the barrier between reality and unreality, except no true defined barrier exists. In other words 0 is a superposition of 1 and -1. My gut instinct is that to prove my theory someone would have to find a way to prove that rather than a number divided by it's negative counterpart equaling -1 such as -5/5=-1, we must prove that -5/5=0. Maybe there's a form of math that can already do that and I'm just ignorant. I think the theory of Dark Matter touches on this same concept, but also that Dark Matter is a very incomplete explanation. We could never interact with Dark Matter and there's nothing to fear from it; because Dark Matter only "exists" where we do not, in perpetuity. We couldn't touch Dark Matter any more than the North and South ends of a magnet could touch each other. (BTW add spontaneous magnetic-pole reversals to my list of "evidence") Maybe centuries from now a breakthrough will be discovered that allows interaction with Dark Matter and suddenly allows all possibilities to exist simultaneously and be manipulatable. To interact with Dark Matter would be to tap into the very essence of all that does and doesn't exist. I doubt it will be the first Singularity to occur, the AI Singularity wins that race easily IMO, but I certainly think gaining the ability to interact with Dark Matter will be the Final Singularity since at that point all that is known will instantaneously be re-written. If you read all this thank you for your time; and if I'm just a naïve lunatic then sorry for wasting that time. I sure hope that in a few decades I'm proven right though :P _ZINK
Gin
Gin 2 ай бұрын
It was so funny and mind refreshing. Thanks Sabine.
Martin Wolfaardt
Martin Wolfaardt Ай бұрын
An interesting perspective from the Mahayana and Zen philosophers is that "something" and "nothing" (more typically translated in those texts as "form" and "emptiness") are polar opposites generated by the emergence of consciousness and have no substantive ontology. A sutra claims "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". The underlying principle here is that it is only because us humans think - and more specifically that we think in terms of our own independent existence (Descartes etc.) - that any duality exists. Our limited intelligence breaks what is inherently perfect unity. Of course this isn't much good as an explanation for anything (or nothing). As a once-upon-a-time pretend physicist (i.e. i have my name on an obscure paper in Classical and Quantum Gravity - in truth only due to the generosity of my supervisor) I love your work, by the way. Despite the holy cheese.
ytbit
ytbit Ай бұрын
I've always felt that actually there IS nothing. It's the only sensible state of the universe that doesn't require an explanation. Everything that we see around us is a mere instability in that state. Virtual. It is borrowed and has to disappear as if it never existed. Which, of course, it didn't. I quite like this perspective. Gives me peace of mind.
aura
aura Ай бұрын
shh stop revealing secrets
His Royal Yeetness
His Royal Yeetness 2 ай бұрын
These jokes being delivered with her somber, straight-faced demeanor is my kind of humor
His Royal Yeetness
His Royal Yeetness 2 ай бұрын
@zzausel man why you gotta bring politics into this…
zzausel
zzausel 2 ай бұрын
Even better would be watching Biden and Putin speaking with red bubble noses on.
Alexander Feterman
Alexander Feterman 2 ай бұрын
@James James I do what I can.
James James
James James 2 ай бұрын
@Alexander Feterman You said that without a smile on your face -- well done on the deadpan 🙂
Alexander Feterman
Alexander Feterman 2 ай бұрын
They call it "deadpan" and Sabine is a master at it.
Dalphon
Dalphon Ай бұрын
you are a great teacher, you make simplify a very complex idea.
Derpy Duck
Derpy Duck Ай бұрын
I'd say it's possible to take it further and argue that there is still something in the box via the fact that there is the idea of something being not in there. The simple belief that there is nothing is still something. Therefore, the person who made the box AND the person who requested the box may be required to not exist somehow
Sir Krim
Sir Krim Ай бұрын
If the box contains nothing, wouldn't there then be an effect on the box itself? There should be a pressure differential between the air outside and the vacuum? Therefore wouldn't that count as the contents having something? Because it's affecting the world outside by it's presence.
tasos0140
tasos0140 Ай бұрын
In Greek when one says "thank you" the reply is often: "nothing", meaning "no trouble at all". As a kid I thought that the answer "nothing" was actually a remark they did for not getting any tangible reward for the good deed, rather than a "thank you". That's an other level of nothing.
Murat Isik
Murat Isik 2 ай бұрын
Like many others, I got to know Sabine with her book “Lost in Math”. Since then, she is a value in my life. This discussion about 9 levels of nothing reminds me of the opening sentence of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s masterpiece Tractatus: “The world is everything that is the case”. I am a mortal bookworm with a computer science degree, not a philosopher. Here is my subjective interpretation of the sentence and connection to the discussion. By “the world”, Wittgenstein actually refers to the whole universe. I understand this sentence somewhat as: “Anything that we can say is limited to be about this universe”, in a more open form: “The expressive power of human language is specific and limited to express facts about this universe.” I think anything beyond Level 5 is beyond the expressive power of human language, whose origin is our universe full of things, and designed to talk about things. It does not mean that we cannot construct sentences about these concepts, but it means that the meaning conveyed by these sentences will have to be distorted just as an irregular piece of glass distorts the image behind. Even Level 5 is problematic. Look at the sentence “Sometimes virtual particles can become real” at 5:17. As you would think deeper and deeper on the definitions of “real”, “virtual”, “become”, “can” and “sometimes”, you may notice the distortion introduced by the lens of language. Almost certainly, we cannot construct a sentence about a place where “there are no laws of nature”, and expect it to be free of problems. I personally think a lot of language distortion is similarly the main cause of why we see the sub-atomic quantum world “weird”. In describing the double slit experiment, for instance, we often talk about the “poor” electron trying to “decide” which slit to pass through, and then with not enough time to decide, it goes through both at the same time. Clearly, the language and its constituent metaphors, evolved to express facts about universe at our human scale is introducing distortion. I am grateful to you Sabine for the thought provoking episode, you have a visible impact.
Murat Isik
Murat Isik 8 күн бұрын
@Rotaermel Thanks Rotaermel. What is your view on the representability of level 7 through 9 space as described in the video, in the logical space?
Rotaermel
Rotaermel 16 күн бұрын
Wittgenstein scholar here. By „the world“ Wittgenstein doesn‘t refer to an actual, material universe, but rather to what he calls the „logical space“. „The world is the totalty of facts, not of things“ means that the logical space is filled with states of affairs which can be described with sentences. If you want, that‘s the blue print of any universe.
Sky Lark
Sky Lark 23 күн бұрын
@Bart van den Donk Yes, we have to think outside the box 😁
Bart van den Donk
Bart van den Donk 26 күн бұрын
@Ping Pong Cup Shots talking about a box is talking about limits. This is a problem in itself.
Bart van den Donk
Bart van den Donk 26 күн бұрын
You almost get a feeling of emotions for "the" electron. 😏😁
Nizal Nik Mohamed
Nizal Nik Mohamed Ай бұрын
Consider these two sentences: A) I want nothing for my birthday. B) Nothing is a word consisting of 7 letters. The first example, in its most standard interpretation, uses the word nothing within the context of set theory, i.e. as a negation/exclusion of all relevant entities within consideration. The second example however focuses on the idea of nothingness itself, instead of its functional role in relation to a set of entities. Normally when we encounter the word "nothing" in a sentence, there is an intuitive tendency to interpret it either as a negation (A) or with "nothing" itself being the subject/object in focus (B). Wordplay humor/confusion tend to arise when we misinterpret/reinterpret it in the opposite (non-intuitive) manner, as exemplified in various comments below e.g. "I understood nothing from this video". This conflation of two distinct interpretations of the word, though humorous at times, might become a stumbling block in our attempt to understand a sentence whenever the word "nothing" is used. Thus I wonder if we can better deduce its correct intent if we distinctly relabel them accordingly to their appropriate context when we discuss about it, e.g. !nothing! (A) vs "nothing" (B).
Carlos Ferreira
Carlos Ferreira Ай бұрын
I like the video, but I think that to discuss the essence of nothing, we need to discuss the scope of duality between the observer and the observed. Most of the discussed items are all related to the observer ability to measure, make inference, postulate or believe in, based in some scope that we do not control. We simply are closed in a box scope , with some limits we may or may not experience. We can perceive this box in many of the concepts we have available in the box, related to all of this being simple projections of much higher dimensions, time, consciousness, space, gravity, etc.etc...virtual particles are only again the effect of projections of higher order dinensions...etc...Whatever we do, we have a limited box scope, bound to the cognitive presence of us as observers. There is absolutely no evidence that can relate the size of this box to the size of what is there to exist. So constructing a concept of nothing with the tools from this box, not only seems to be impossible, as to talk about the concept of nothing, we have to be able to talk about everything ( that we can't because of the box..we have no idea what is everything) , and to imagine the concept of nothing may only be a very naive attempt to manipulate our concepts inside the box, because we have no proof or even hint about if nothing or everything is even a possible concept. we can only delete the concept of observer, but that does not make automatically the emergence of the opposite concept of everything, nor everything itself. nothing is an illusion, as everything. It is the result of abstract concepts from the discriminating mind
The Holy Trinity
The Holy Trinity Ай бұрын
We first have to define “nothing”, which we will define as that which has no characteristics at all, not even ability or potentiality. This seems to me to be a good definition for nothing, because if nothing had some characteristic, then we really cannot call it nothing, but rather something with that particular characteristic. Since "nothing" has no characteristic, it does not exist. We can only conceive of it in our mind. Empty space is not nothing, since space itself has the characteristic of 3 dimensions. Laws of nature, like the conservation of energy, are not nothing because they have characteristics (rules) that act. We will first prove that our universe could not have come from nothing on its own. Proof by Contradiction: Assume that our universe, came from nothing, on its own. So, in the beginning there was nothing and from this nothing came forth our universe on its own. However, if our universe came from nothing, (without the help of anything or anyone else), then this nothing must have had the ability or the potential to become our universe on its own, otherwise it could not have become our universe on its own. However, this is a contradiction because by definition, nothing, cannot have any characteristics at all, including ability or potentiality. Hence, this so called nothing had to have been something, and this is a contradiction, because we at first assumed it was nothing and now, we have shown it had to have been something. Therefore, our universe could not have come from nothing on its own. End Of Proof Since our universe obviously exists, and since our universe had to have come from something as we just proved, then this something either was in turn created by something else or always existed. In any case, in the end, this proves that something must have always existed from all eternity. Since the universe including humans came from this "something that always existed" then this "something" must be at least as intelligent as a human since we came from it. Since we call ourselves beings, then this "something" should at least be called a being, and in fact a very great Being, since everything has come from it. This does not prove that this Being that always existed is not made of matter like the earth, but the next proof will prove that this Being is outside of space and time. Time can either progress infinitely fast, finite, or stop. There are only these three cases. If time would have progressed infinitely fast at any time in the past, then we would not be here today discussing this, because all events would have already occurred in a single instant of time. On the other hand, if time would have stopped, then no events would have occurred, unless time would have started up again. In any case, in conclusion, time has always progressed (so far) at a finite rate. Therefore, if time would have begun an infinite time ago, since it only progressed at a finite rate, it could not ever have progressed over an infinite period of time and therefore could never have reached our present time, and this is a simple mathematical fact that any mathematician can prove. Therefore, time could not have started an infinite time ago, but instead, had to have started a finite time ago. Since Einstein has proved that space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum, then space along with time both came into existence a finite time ago. Since all matter, energy, and everything in our universe is contained in space and time, then our universe was created a finite time ago. Since we previously proved that there is a Being that always existed from all eternity, then this Being must exist outside of space and time and therefore is the cause and hence, created space, time and all matter and energy in our universe. We call this Being God, the Almighty!
Sdfbservtser ADRGCE%TBE
Sdfbservtser ADRGCE%TBE 12 күн бұрын
that was my answer for 20 years! :) that 9th level of nothing - something exists, the abstract idea of things that could be. and if something exists, there is no nothing. so the question is - why of all the things that could exist, THIS exists? . so weird and nice to find some validation to my old philosophy :)
Mason Shihab
Mason Shihab 2 ай бұрын
4:15 -- the best part of Sabine's humor is that it is as on point as it is unexpected
Josh
Josh Ай бұрын
She’s a savage 😭💀
Michael Dixon
Michael Dixon 2 ай бұрын
@Sinna It's still 'en pointe'. (Two down, 7 billion to go).
Michael Dixon
Michael Dixon 2 ай бұрын
I want to start telling ppl that it's 'en pointe' not 'on point'. One down, 7 billion to go.
aDBo'Ch 1
aDBo'Ch 1 2 ай бұрын
@sokami 🤔 Sgt. Schultz agrees with you. Col. Crittendon (R.A.F. Group Captain) thinks it's a devilishly clever trick. Major (Sturmbannfuhrer) Hochstetter : "Who is this Hossenfelder & what is she doing here ??!! Gaaah !!!" 🙋‍♂️🐶🖖🤔🌌🎇✨🎆🌠🏞🌄🌅☄💥🌋🤯🤕🌊☠👻👽 🤖👨‍🚀🚀🛰✌🤷‍♂️😎
Josche MacDonnell
Josche MacDonnell 2 ай бұрын
Well that's something..
mark paterson
mark paterson 2 ай бұрын
Sabine made a video literally about nothing and turned it into something great.
Jens Niemann
Jens Niemann 2 ай бұрын
If this proof (that something actually must exist) were presented, then it would contain a description of that something, which would be a novelty (at least to our present state of knowledge), and have implications for further study, inquiry and enlightenment. Reply with YES if you want to know more.
Calorie King
Calorie King Ай бұрын
Sabine, how do you stay so calm when discussing such intense existential dilemma?
zrath67
zrath67 Ай бұрын
I love how at level-8 you have to take the abstract idea of "nothing" out of the box.
Jeff Neptune
Jeff Neptune 2 ай бұрын
I love how she puts down physicists and cosmologists that try to get away with creating a universe out of nothing, but not really NOTHING.
James Silver
James Silver Ай бұрын
@Jay Rathjen right-left-MIDDLE the middle is actually the rigt tweaked-perfected by the left. the cause of it all , G-D of course.
Hyperduality
Hyperduality 2 ай бұрын
@Setekh Colours are actually dual -- electro-magnetic energy. Duality leads to the 4th law of thermodynamics! Your comment is asinine.
Setekh
Setekh 2 ай бұрын
@Hyperduality And orange isn't dual to red, so please stuff it. Your useless duality is useless, which is dual to useful in all it's degrees of usefulness, which you lack.
Hyperduality
Hyperduality 2 ай бұрын
@Jay Rathjen Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Relax dude I am hitting you with the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. From a converging, convex (lens) or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All observers have a syntropic perspective according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My syntropy is your entropy and your syntropy is my entropy -- duality! Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line. There are patterns of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics & philosophy. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegelian philosophy or metaphysics but the books do not tell you that. Bosons (symmetric wave functions, waves) are dual to Fermions (anti-symmetric wave functions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. You and your mind are built form atoms hence duality. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark matter is dual to dark energy. That is the good news. Good news is dual to bad news. The bad news is that main stream physics is currently dominated by materialists or teleophobia. Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Signals (patterns, order, predictability, syntropy) are dual to noise (randomness, unpredictability, entropy). "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Making predictions to track, targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. There is a dual process to that of increasing entropy namely syntropy. Syntropic processes are dual to entropic processes.
Jay Rathjen
Jay Rathjen 2 ай бұрын
@Hyperduality The dualism is what we need to think beyond. We have hit a wall of understanding
Alexander Pantle
Alexander Pantle Ай бұрын
There's a tenth level of nothing, too. But to get there, you have to remove the observer, as the observer is observing nothing, which is something. A true nothing cannot be measured or defined because the act of measuring and defining something makes it something.
Cali Rageh
Cali Rageh 2 күн бұрын
I was happy at level 2, just saying lol
Stephen Thomas-Dorin
Stephen Thomas-Dorin Ай бұрын
I really like the absurdity argument. I have another answer that is very similar. Why not both? Maybe there is something and there is nothing but we just can’t comprehend how there is nothing because any attempt to comprehend it is a something. This is only slightly different from the given argument since it doesn’t rule out nothing; it only rules out understanding it.
Raptor302
Raptor302 Ай бұрын
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" The best answer I can come up with is that 'nothing' is a strict impossibility. It is an abstract concept imagined by humans. We look into the blackness of space and imagine what a 'nothing' could be, but the reason there cannot just be 'nothing' is that there was never an opportunity for it...something was always here.
Liminal System
Liminal System Ай бұрын
Honestly, if someone gave me a box of level 4 of beyond "nothing" I would be pretty darn impressed
Jacob Holden
Jacob Holden Ай бұрын
If you ask me "why is there something rather then nothing?" I would say because there always has to be something. I believe that there was something before us and our whole 14 billion years of being something. i think life goes back even further then we think. My theory is that the space we live in, our universe is some sort of sentient force. When all the galaxies drift apart so far apart that they are alone drifting forever apart. The universe explodes and creates more life like an engine turning over and letting it go after its work is done to let everything play out themselves.
Cody Heiner
Cody Heiner Ай бұрын
Anthropomorphic principle: if there were nothing, we couldn't ask why there's something rather than nothing. Loved this video! Your dedication to the birthday present is wonderful!
Luc Notenboom
Luc Notenboom 23 күн бұрын
@Sky Lark that's fair, although that does assume the existence of a "quantum field" where quantum phenomena can take place
Sky Lark
Sky Lark 23 күн бұрын
@Luc Notenboom I think it does come down to probability and quantum mechanics so there is an infinite number of chances that something could appear (ie. as there is no time limit) and that means the probability is non-zero.
Luc Notenboom
Luc Notenboom 23 күн бұрын
@Sky Lark that is also a correct statement. I would like to refer to the beginning of this interaction, where you claimed to have an explanation of why something exists. So far, all you have done is restating proof that something indeed exist, which is redundant, since I am here to listen to that proof I apparently already embody that proof. So I continued asking specifically *why* something exists. What is it that has enabled existence? You still have not explained that. Although I guess you would like me to ask "how is it that something exists?"
Sky Lark
Sky Lark 23 күн бұрын
@Luc Notenboom You can't prove it isn't non-zero.
Luc Notenboom
Luc Notenboom 23 күн бұрын
@Sky Larkyes, but why?
Richard Hunt
Richard Hunt Ай бұрын
So if "nothing" isn't important to you, how about life being found on an exoplanet. Whilst it would make a great headline and spawn many a book (think crop circles), what difference would it make to us humans? Nothing?
Matt Lew
Matt Lew 2 ай бұрын
Your videos have been popping up on my KZpost for a while, and I was very confused. I just watched this video and realize I had you confused with an entirely different person with a similar name. I'm so glad I watched, and now I'm a new subscriber
The Sunroses
The Sunroses Ай бұрын
this is a bit tautolgical, but our favorite answer to "why is there something rather than nothing", is because if there was nothing, then there wouldn't be anything, and we wouldn't be here to wonder why anything exists
01101000 01100001
01101000 01100001 Ай бұрын
My answer to "why is there something rather than nothing?" is that nothing can only ever be a human perception. Objective nothingness is impossible it only exists as a concept to represent absence, so that makes existence be the default. So it's unreasonable to expect the universe to ever be or that it ever was nothing.
Alexander Pantle
Alexander Pantle Ай бұрын
I learned about nothing in this video and was incredibly fascinated!
FlockOfWingedDoors
FlockOfWingedDoors 2 ай бұрын
Love seeing Lost in Math on my shelf, and your videos in my feed. Your works are valuable, and as a physics student, I find your content inspiring! Keep up the amazing work.
Ruth Jarman and Joe Gerhardt
Ruth Jarman and Joe Gerhardt Ай бұрын
Which box does the speed of light end? ( I assume it would be the level 5 space time box) Which box does determinism end? ( I guess it would be level 4 as virtual particles are not deterministic) Where these things emerge is why we ask about nothing. Is the universe emerging into existing spacetime? I think not but this video seems to assume it does. I also find it amusing that physicists have to put a box around everything before they can talk about it. Surely level 0 is that you cant even give a box in you want to give nothing?
BoredTech
BoredTech Ай бұрын
I would agree up to about 7 because the only way to be sure the box is empty would be to add stuff to the box to check its emptiness and or check for every possible thing that could ever occur within the box. Also the structure of the box and its dimensions are something that cannot be removed as they maintain the boxes "emptiness" similar to a hard drive which even if empty has defined sectors. My version of nothing is something that we cant tell exists and we cannot interact with it in any way and vice versa.
Overloader7
Overloader7 Ай бұрын
What about the very concept of the box of nothing that happens when we percieve its existance? It is tied to the box (conceptually), meaning such box must not be percieved either
Barbara Spangenberg
Barbara Spangenberg 28 күн бұрын
Nice video! The physics at the moment is struggeling with nothing level 6.
Glen Benson
Glen Benson 2 ай бұрын
I love this video. I tried to imagine nothing once but I couldn't do it. Same with infinity.
Ray
Ray Ай бұрын
...
John Haller
John Haller 2 ай бұрын
@Alex Gonzo All AI replicants "tattooed on the back of their neck" He's B-E-H-I-N-D Y-O-U!
John Haller
John Haller 2 ай бұрын
@Aljoscha Long Are you sure he was a real baker? A lot of AI facsimiles around at the moment, on the take. "Tattooed on the back of their neck" Get well Michael Palin!
John Haller
John Haller 2 ай бұрын
@Alex Gonzo The sphere of nothingness can be experienced if you are a trained meditator. After that comes the sphere of neither perception or non perception. The real problem is understanding that there are intersecting universes(locations) that can be entered either at will, or by means of tuning the mind like a radio receiver that can receive information from the so called immaterial world. Sanskrit, Arupaloka. Takes some training just like it does for an astronaut. But it does not mean that it cannot be done. Aptitude and training, voila!
John Haller
John Haller 2 ай бұрын
@Setekh Or you could go to the sphere of nothingness, located just below the sphere of neither perception, or non perception.Early Buddhist tradition Arupaloka. But then it gets a little bit tricky. Next stop, the attainment of cessation. You have to dial in how long you are going to visit for, in advance. Probably like visiting Bhutan,(and even more expensive) but you have to be only a couple of defilements of insight below Nirvana to get there in the first place after which you "Go immediately to Nirvana, do not collect $200 do not pass go" And that's a good thing! We all laugh about nothing etc.
John Croft
John Croft 16 күн бұрын
This video is a goldmine. Thanks Sabine!
Iris Thorne
Iris Thorne Ай бұрын
It’s funny to me because the effort gone through in order to “create” this “nothing” is in and of itself a gift because it’s the thought that counts so really what you’ve given me for my birthday is this video. Its existence proves its falsehood.
Ellie Rusu
Ellie Rusu Ай бұрын
When I was very small I asked my mum, "Why can't you see the nothing?" And she replied, "Because it's not there." I guess she was right!
Nathan Olmstead
Nathan Olmstead Ай бұрын
Some years ago I tried tackling the idea of nothing from my own amateur philosopher point of view. And I could only get to around your level 8 of nothing. I could not philosophically prove that nothing exists to my own satisfaction, and had to therefore conclude that something does in fact exists.
David Tatro
David Tatro 2 ай бұрын
Great video! Love the humor and the thoughtfulness, and for the record, l would be devasted by any birthday gift of a level of nothing that made cheese impossible.
MineWarz
MineWarz Ай бұрын
I don't see as much as an issue with "something" existing it's more the question why this specific something exists, and not another something (fill in e.g. "universe" for nothing) I like the theory that everything conceivable exists, thus necessitating the existence for this something, and all other somethings
Mage Chartreux
Mage Chartreux Ай бұрын
This video had me in stitches. I mean, I've always laughed hardest at what others say is nothing.
User670
User670 Ай бұрын
As a computer nerd, ... there is a "I'm gonna treat it like nothing" nothing that computers deal with. Basically, unless you do something fancy, deleting a file doesn't delete the data, instead it marks the part of the hard drive with the data as being free, i.e. if you want to store something else, feel free to overwrite it. What kind of nothing is this? A level... zero nothing? or level negative-something?
RollyBM
RollyBM Ай бұрын
At levels >6, I find it hard to accept that there would be a possibility to interpret all these ontological parasitic ideas. And I guess the laws of nature are connected with the vacuum. So, stopping at level 5 totally makes sense to me.
Tehom
Tehom 2 ай бұрын
Great video, and I'm glad you split it into 9 levels. Too often people miss the point of Heidegger's question and start talking about vacuum fluctuations, very impressed with themselves for displaying scientific acumen but oblivious to the fact that they've merely answered about a level 3 nothing. To my way of thinking, the real answer to Heidegger's question starts with the fact that it assumes the law of non-contradiction, that "something" and "nothing" are incompatible because they contradict each other. But LNC is lost at about the same level that maths is lost at. So at the most basic level, without LNC, we can have something *and* nothing (and also everything). Well then, what do we see of the nothingness? Or what do we experience of it, in the most general sense? Well, there's nothing there to experience. Not even an empty region of space or time. You were good enough to list the previous levels of nothingness that the potential for these experiences was lost at. So when we experience a superposition, if you will, of fundamental nothingness and somethingness, we can only experience the somethingness. We are incapable of perceiving fundamental nothingness. Thus we feel that there is something rather than nothing.
s abdi
s abdi 16 күн бұрын
Thank you Sabine, please help here: Did we remove thought? Did the box inflate/outflate?
Norbert Blackrain
Norbert Blackrain 29 күн бұрын
Seen this way it it so very complicated to give "nothing"! It is a great explanation. In general "nothing" might be described as the absence of something ...
Why Counting Calories Makes No Sense
19:36
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 14 М.
How close is wireless power technology?
15:54
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 279 М.
МЫ ОТДАЛИ КОТЕНКА?!🥺
1:00
МЯТНЫЙ
Рет қаралды 2,1 МЛН
НАС ЗАБРАЛА СКОРАЯ?...
0:55
Chapitosiki
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
СТАЛЛОНЕ В ЛЕГЕНДАРНОМ фильме РЭМБО 3
1:34:36
Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Nothing
13:45
StarTalk
Рет қаралды 1,6 МЛН
Cold Fusion is Back (there's just one problem)
19:53
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 742 М.
Is Nuclear Power Green?
22:47
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 654 М.
Should we abandon the multiverse theory? | Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku
53:43
5G: The Trouble With the New Phone Network
17:21
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 494 М.
All you need to know to understand 5G
17:48
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
What is Nothing? | Episode 1212 | Closer To Truth
26:47
Closer To Truth
Рет қаралды 201 М.
Is Elon Musk right in saying that we are too few people?
20:05
Sabine Hossenfelder
Рет қаралды 291 М.
podcast.6: про переезд и мои чувства
51:18
Казанцева Саша
Рет қаралды 54 М.
SH - Cô gái hay khoe khoang || Bragging girl #shorts
0:58
Su Hao
Рет қаралды 3,4 МЛН