Does Nothingness Exist?

[The Sum of Awe]

Simple question. Does nothingness exist? Is there anything that doesn't have existence?

I personally say that there isn't a single thing that doesn't exist. I personally say nothingness, which upholds the value of 0, doesn't exist, and that existence is default which is why there is something instead of nothing.

I do not have a friend named Harry Cox, Harry Cox was never born yet I conceptualize him in my thoughts right now. Is Harry Cox perceiving nothingness? Is my figment of imagination unconscious? Is there a person here that doesn't exist? My answer to all of these questions is no. What do you think/

 

[HeatherAnn]

The term nothing is dependent on something - "no thing."
However, what is considered a thing, is continuously debated from various angles.

Some would contest that only that which could be experienced through the 5 senses is countable as something existing.
Others, like me, see evidence of phenomena that is not experienced through the 5 senses.

 

[xkatz]

Simple question. Does nothingness exist? Is there anything that doesn't have existence?

Nothingness existing is contradictory. And existence is something intrinsic to everything.

 

[Willamena]

Simple question. Does nothingness exist? Is there anything that doesn't have existence?

I personally say that there isn't a single thing that doesn't exist. I personally say nothingness, which upholds the value of 0, doesn't exist, and that existence is default which is why there is something instead of nothing.

I do not have a friend named Harry Cox, Harry Cox was never born yet I conceptualize him in my thoughts right now. Is Harry Cox perceiving nothingness? Is my figment of imagination unconscious? Is there a person here that doesn't exist? My answer to all of these questions is no. What do you think/

Nothing(ness) exists, it's a place-filler for something lacking. Even if you mentally subtract the whole universe to derive it, 0-universe exists.

Imagined things exist, they are imagined things. "Imagined" is their state.

Non-existence is not a state, it's existence negated.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Simple question. Does nothingness exist? Is there anything that doesn't have existence?

I personally say that there isn't a single thing that doesn't exist. I personally say nothingness, which upholds the value of 0, doesn't exist, and that existence is default which is why there is something instead of nothing.

I do not have a friend named Harry Cox, Harry Cox was never born yet I conceptualize him in my thoughts right now. Is Harry Cox perceiving nothingness? Is my figment of imagination unconscious? Is there a person here that doesn't exist? My answer to all of these questions is no. What do you think/

Our own non-existence is of a different kind than Harry's, plus not existing isn't so bad. Its actually interesting and makes more sense than existing does.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If nothingness didn't exist, how did you identify it as nothingness?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If nothingness didn't exist, how did you identify it as nothingness?

I'm only aware of the only existing "nothingness" to be a concept of it which in itself cannot accurately be comprehended.

In a much similar way, perceiving objective reality would be as absurd as something feeling nothing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Simple question. Does nothingness exist? Is there anything that doesn't have existence?

Numbers. Numbers do not exist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm only aware of the only existing "nothingness" to be a concept of it which in itself cannot accurately be comprehended.

In a much similar way, perceiving objective reality would be as absurd as something feeling nothing.

I suppose you can conceptualize a line then using a tangible medium (something) draw a line until it exhaust itself out (nothing) through the medium and asking yourself if that line is actually finite or infinite through it's existing form as it is produced, or by it's lack of form without it's medium. Perhaps best put as the matrix'y , "There is no line." somethingness and nothingness share the same qualities of existance and nothingness simultaneously. We see something and nothing as being separate when neither directly applies in a universal sense. We just happen to think and precieve a particular way that contrasts the two distinctively rather than seamless without dimension.

 

[psychoslice]

I would say that there isn't such thing as nonexistence, everything in this whole cosmos is one, everything is connected, to say there is nonexistence is of the mind only, it means nothing to the cosmos.

 

[s2a]

Simple question. Does nothingness exist? Is there anything that doesn't have existence?

I personally say that there isn't a single thing that doesn't exist. I personally say nothingness, which upholds the value of 0, doesn't exist, and that existence is default which is why there is something instead of nothing.

I do not have a friend named Harry Cox, Harry Cox was never born yet I conceptualize him in my thoughts right now. Is Harry Cox perceiving nothingness? Is my figment of imagination unconscious? Is there a person here that doesn't exist? My answer to all of these questions is no. What do you think/

When you make it to that bottom of a black hole, share that with us, ok?

I would never wish to be seen as just another Cox sucker.

 

[Straw Dog]

Personal understanding includes existence and non-existence as both notions emerge co-dependently through contrast. We both exist and do not exist at the same time. If we regard things as existing substantially or permanently, then we are also probably taking ourselves way too seriously. We observe change and transformation rather than a static state of existence.

To believe in nothing is to believe in something which has no form or color existing before all appearances arise. In constantly seeking to actualize ideal states, we have no time for composure now. Accepting everything as something appearing from nothing, or rather knowing that there is some particular reason why a phenomenal existence of such and such form appears, then we may find composure in the moment.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Numbers. Numbers do not exist.

They exist abstractly, their shapes are merely symbols to resemble them, so I would say numbers are as real as energy

 

[Brickjectivity]

They exist abstractly, their shapes are merely symbols to resemble them, so I would say numbers are as real as energy

Partly for which reason I would also suggest energy does not truly exist and because Physics seems to suggest that time does not exist. If time does not exist, then that leads to the conclusion that we do not exist either, nor energy. We appear to exist like the '3' appears to the '2' to exist. Think of it as Plato's idealism, except that we are the idea rather than a physical manifestation of it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Partly for which reason I would also suggest energy does not truly exist and because Physics seems to suggest that time does not exist. If time does not exist, then that leads to the conclusion that we do not exist either, nor energy. We appear to exist like the '3' appears to the '2' to exist. Think of it as Plato's idealism, except that we are the idea rather than a physical manifestation of it.

I don't recall physics saying such. Most physicists I've spoken with would agree that time is a direction. The only thing I disagree with is that it is heavily considered that time to be a temporal dimension when I personally think time is a spatial dimension, maybe not time itself, but duration.

Time does have existence, although I know it's a popular thought that it doesn't because it isn't exactly an object, it's a measurement. Time exists just as much as width does. Time is the direction duration swings in the 3rd dimension, which is why we do not perceive time going backwards or staying still.

Energy, too, exists. It isn't an object, like time, unless you are watching Stargate Atlantis I have never heard of people saying otherwise to be honest, and I think that's because we know so much about energy. We even know how to convert energy into mass (E=MC^2).

I think the confusing part is how it exists. When the common man thinks of "exist" they often picture an object, but that's not to exclude non-objects. There are properties that emerge from objects and most certainly are real just not in the same way as many things are.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

When you make it to that bottom of a black hole, share that with us, ok?

I would never wish to be seen as just another Cox sucker.

That is, if I can escape from the black hole after wards

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't recall physics saying such. Most physicists I've spoken with would agree that time is a direction. The only thing I disagree with is that it is heavily considered that time to be a temporal dimension when I personally think time is a spatial dimension, maybe not time itself, but duration.

Time does have existence, although I know it's a popular thought that it doesn't because it isn't exactly an object, it's a measurement. Time exists just as much as width does. Time is the direction duration swings in the 3rd dimension, which is why we do not perceive time going backwards or staying still.

Energy, too, exists. It isn't an object, like time, unless you are watching Stargate Atlantis I have never heard of people saying otherwise to be honest, and I think that's because we know so much about energy. We even know how to convert energy into mass (E=MC^2).

I think the confusing part is how it exists. When the common man thinks of "exist" they often picture an object, but that's not to exclude non-objects. There are properties that emerge from objects and most certainly are real just not in the same way as many things are.

If time is merely a dimension, I think that is the same as saying it doesn't exist. It is like saying nothing changes, all things are static, motion is merely the appearance of motion. Dimensions are what we think we perceive. You ask if I know of something that does not exist, and I say numbers followed by us. Look at the infinite variety available in the Mandelbrot set, due purely to the innate characteristics of numbers. No one had to create numbers. They are what order implies, one thing adds to another; and complexity is part of that, the mandlebrot set is in it, and perhaps all things are in it that we know of. Perhaps we are an expression of some similar thing, and maybe our atoms and universes are not anything but mathematical constructs.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If time is merely a dimension, I think that is the same as saying it doesn't exist. It is like saying nothing changes, all things are static, motion is merely the appearance of motion. Dimensions are what we think we perceive. You ask if I know of something that does not exist, and I say numbers followed by us. Look at the infinite variety available in the Mandelbrot set, due purely to the innate characteristics of numbers. No one had to create numbers. They are what order implies, one thing adds to another; and complexity is part of that, the mandlebrot set is in it, and perhaps all things are in it that we know of. Perhaps we are an expression of some similar thing, and maybe our atoms and universes are not anything but mathematical constructs.

That's a very interesting idea. I personally just see it the opposite way, that mathematical constructs define our atoms and universes, that math and numbers exist as a rule. 1+1=2 is real because if there is one jelly bean and you get one more there are two. Their names and symbols are human invention, sure, which uphold an existence of representation similar to language.

I don't understand how motion could merely be the appearance of motion, but then that doesn't explain why there is a linear experience of events (time). Motion creates time and not the other way around. Time is a measurement but I don't think this makes it any less real.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's a very interesting idea. I personally just see it the opposite way, that mathematical constructs define our atoms and universes, that math and numbers exist as a rule. 1+1=2 is real because if there is one jelly bean and you get one more there are two. Their names and symbols are human invention, sure, which uphold an existence of representation similar to language.

I don't understand how motion could merely be the appearance of motion, but then that doesn't explain why there is a linear experience of events (time). Motion creates time and not the other way around. Time is a measurement but I don't think this makes it any less real.

I'm not going to try to prove it to you. If I did prove it you might believe it, and that might give you mystical powers over reality. You are right to be sceptical.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm not going to try to prove it to you. If I did prove it you might believe it, and that might give you mystical powers over reality. You are right to be sceptical.

Why not? And prove what?