Originally Posted By: Bill S.
In the same way that in science the word “nothing” has evolved to a point where it has become necessary to use “absolute nothing” where once “nothing” would have sufficed; so we have, perhaps reached a point where we have to use “absolutely infinite” to differentiate between the scientific usage of infinity and that which is


That is garbage even in layman terms "nothing" has never meant there is literally nothing including the universe

The usual historical dictionary definition is "nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance". It has been extended to "not anything" but it still had some logic that it was the absence of something expected.

If you go to the works of William Shakespeare and he has "Much Ado About Nothing" he isn't talking about the universe ending is he.

The need for absolute in the front is because you have butchered the word meaning and if I was another person on the forum I would be arguing that you have to stop using it like that because it offends me.

The word history of nothing is said to be from nan "not one" (see none) + þing "thing." first recorded in 1631 and that doesn't say the universe and everything ends there does it, it says lack of one thing. As Paul points out infinity has always had it's current use.

So don't blame the problem with nothing on science it is you layman that have butchered the word and it's meaning, we use absolute to try and clarify what you are talking about. In science we still use nothing in it's normal English sense like

"I tested for radioactive elements and found nothing"

The sentence doesn't say I found the end of the universe when I did the test smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/30/14 12:44 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.