a few years later cubeDirected by Canadian filmmaker Vincenzo Natali nothinga bizarre concept film in which two accomplices gradually obscure the outside world, only to finally find themselves in a completely empty world, represented only by White – and end up dissolving themselves bit by bit.
Perhaps this was the first time that the director tried to embody the concept of “nothing”. However, it wasn’t fully realized (because it’s white, it’s not quite my thing).
Popular Mechanics interested To this elusive idea, since then, without wanting to imitate Raymond DeVos (AuthorDiagram called “talking to say nothing”), is nothing, it is a thing, and therefore it is not a thing.
Philosophers, of course, have taken up this concept, following the example of Roy Sorensen, author of a work entitled Nothing – a philosophical history. He developed the idea of nothingness from many angles: absolute nothingness, scientific nothingness, potential nothingness. He describes it as the beginning and the end of everything. It seems that in this subject philosophy and humor do not cease to converge, as if the nothingness was so startling and frightening that it was better – also – to laugh at it.
And so, if The irony of holes in Gruyere cheese Very popular with fans of Almanach Vermot option galéjades, other related concepts were most seriously developed by Roy Sorensen, such as the concept of a sponge, which allows him to explain how “nothing” is achieved.
“Hole holes in sponges are the sponge’s non-existence! Holes are what allow the sponge to absorb liquid. Sponges cannot exist without holes. But holes cannot ‘exist’ without the sponge. Holes are host-dependent parasites.” An assertion that, according to Popular Mechanics, is highly questionable.
Quantum nothingness
It is very popular in the field of physics because it makes it possible to make precise and accurate predictions about a whole range of phenomena, Quantum field theory He asserts that our universe is not made of matter floating in empty space. Instead, we have been living in a world of energy fields flowing and interacting with each other, creating everything we can see and know – but also everything we can neither see nor know. virtual particles, therefore; But not exactly nothing.
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, and this is nothing, we don’t know. Nor are we in a position to understand the nature of this nothingness. Physicists don’t know why elementary particles survived after the Big Bang. in his book Being out of nothingcosmologist Lawrence Krause attempts an explanation by asserting that nothingness is inherently unstable, and thus made to derive towards the formation of particles. “It is really a scientific question, more than a religious or philosophical question.”Krause confirmed In an interview with NPR.
This ad sparked controversy: Philosophers saw the color red, and some of them ended up divvying up murderous criticisms of his work. Because according to them, there is more than one question related to a philosophical system related to the issue of nothingness, and in particular this question: Is there, in one world or another, a world made of absolute nothingness? It even consists of virtual particles?
Roy Sorensen and Lawrence Krause discuss the topic at length. Their conclusion is as follows: The only thing they are sure of is being suspicious. It never hurts to quote Pierre Desprouges, who might have had a say on the matter.
