What is nothing?

[MSizer]

Spot on, Paul. As an objective thing, nothing (like truth) is a piece of the pictures that compose, for each of us, the world.

You're both confusing the definition of "nothing" with "nothing" itself. Yes, the word "nothing" and the definition of "nothing" do in fact exist, making them "something" but "nothing" is still the lack of something, therefore it is not something.

 

[Willamena]

You're both confusing the definition of "nothing" with "nothing" itself. Yes, the word "nothing" and the definition of "nothing" do in fact exist, making them "something" but "nothing" is still the lack of something, therefore it is not something.

What does it mean "to define" or to give a thing definition?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any attempt to objectify "nothing", by default, makes it a thing --- therefore it is no longer nothing.

You're objectifying it as a concept - not what the concept represents.

Depending on context, nothing, by defintion, is an absence of particular somethings, or in the broadest sense, an absence of any and all somethings. An absence of something isn't something.

 

[MSizer]

You're objectifying it as a concept - not what the concept represents.

Depending on context, nothing, by defintion, is an absence of particular somethings, or in the broadest sense, an absence of any and all somethings. An absence of something isn't something.

Welcome back. .

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Welcome back. .

Ha - that's the last one though. It says everything that needs to be said.

 

[Willamena]

Ha - that's the last one though. It says everything that needs to be said.

Ah, well I guess the debate ends, then.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ah, well I guess the debate ends, then.

For me it does, unless something which actually counters my argument is presented.

 

[YmirGF]

You're objectifying it as a concept - not what the concept represents.

Oy vey.

Depending on context, nothing, by defintion, is an absence of particular somethings, or in the broadest sense, an absence of any and all somethings. An absence of something isn't something.

Even though the concept gives form to that nothingness?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Even though the concept gives form to that nothingness?

It doesn't though. Until and unless you can separate concept from reality, you won't understand what I'm saying.

 

[YmirGF]

It doesn't though. Until and unless you can separate concept from reality, you won't understand what I'm saying.

Trust me, my friend, I am perfectly clear on what you are saying.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Trust me, my friend, I am perfectly clear on what you are saying.

I go by the content of people's statements, not their assurances.

 

[Willamena]

It doesn't though. Until and unless you can separate concept from reality, you won't understand what I'm saying.

If "nothing" is nothing more than the concept of nothing, then you are the one who is not separating the concept from reality.

 

[Willamena]

Else, what I'm hearing in this thread is that "nothing" not a real lack of something, it's a lack that doesn't exist and exists as a concept.

 

[blackout]

"nothing" is a label for "something"... that is "nothing".:areyoucra

 

[Willamena]

You're objectifying it as a concept - not what the concept represents.

Depending on context, nothing, by defintion, is an absence of particular somethings, or in the broadest sense, an absence of any and all somethings. An absence of something isn't something.

I'm actually not disagreeing. I'm not trying to push that anything and nothing are equivalent, but they are both parts of a picture that we each hold of the world (that we have assembled like a puzzle) composed in language, and each piece of the picture that is real is something we recognize, acknowledge exists, hold to be true (believe), posit, and can use in a sentence to communicate meaningfully to each other. "Nothing" is positive; it is a real "lack of something."


The "nothing" piece of that picture is not the same piece as the "thing" piece, but they are both pieces of the picture, each with an accompanying and separate idea-piece, and hence, taking a step back, on another level, they are both "things" (or "pieces" of the world, if you don't like the word thing to be awarded double-use, though one of them has to be in order to talk about this). That piece is what we are talking about when we communicate meaningfully: we communicate "things," and we can and do communicate the "lack of anything".

To argue that "nothing" is conceptual only --idea-form and not a part of the reality portion of the picture --fails to separate "nothing" from the idea of it. It effectively robs that "lack of something" of its reality and leaves us with nothing positable and nothing meaningful to communicate (but look, I can't even communicate that without a meaningful "nothing").

Nothing could be said to have no existence beyond positability, but then that can also be said of anything (but that's a discussion for another thread).


I suspect the "absolute nothing" mentioned earlier would remove all the pieces from the picture, hence leaving us in a world with no language.

 

[nameless]

Basically, I'm still waiting to hear what the difference between nothing and true nothingness is.

this is going like a loop, now i has to repeat my previous question.

you stated darkness and true darkness are different. I asked you how they are different. You said the difference is same as the difference between nothingness and true nothingness. U was asked to relate both the difference, in response to that you are asking me to explain the difference between nothingness and true nothingness. Now it is whose duty to explain the difference? mine or yours? of course, i know the difference but it is not my duty explain the difference now.

 

[Willamena]

this is going like a loop, now i has to repeat my previous question.

you stated darkness and true darkness are different. I asked you how they are different. You said the difference is same as the difference between nothingness and true nothingness. U was asked to relate both the difference, in response to that you are asking me to explain the difference between nothingness and true nothingness. Now it is whose duty to explain the difference? mine or yours? of course, i know the difference but it is not my duty explain the difference now.

What is the difference? (simple question)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

this is going like a loop, now i has to repeat my previous question.

you stated darkness and true darkness are different. I asked you how they are different. You said the difference is same as the difference between nothingness and true nothingness. U was asked to relate both the difference, in response to that you are asking me to explain the difference between nothingness and true nothingness. Now it is whose duty to explain the difference? mine or yours? of course, i know the difference but it is not my duty explain the difference now.

If you know the difference, I'd love to hear it.

 

[nameless]

If you know the difference, I'd love to hear it.

no i wont , since i want to hear it from you also its ur turn.

 

[freethinker44]

It doesn't make any sense to give something two meanings. True nothingness doesn't exist because if you find something that is more like nothing than you previously thought, then that would be the new definition of nothing and the older concept would be something else entirely. All it means is that our previous concept was incomplete. It is like trying to talk about a giraffe and a true giraffe. A giraffe is a true giraffe, anything isn't a giraffe at all.

If you are meaning that true nothingness is the actual, physical nothingness and nothingness is the conceptual interpretation of it, then all you are saying is that our concept of nothing is flawed since it can't truely explain what we intuitively know as nothing, and refining that concept is kind of the purpose of this thread. And let's face it, this whole "i know but I am not going to say" thing is childish, if anyone has anything of value to add you should put it out there and explain it in a way that others can comprehend or be prepared to explain it until it is understood.