What is nothing?

[nameless]

I found that no difference exists between nothing and "true nothingness." You claim to have this knowledge, but are curiously unwilling to express it. I'll have to assume no difference exists unless you can show otherwise.

In true nothingness, nothingness is not felt
In nothingness, we feel nothingness exists.

so there exists difference in feelings. what we feel in nothingness is not felt in true nothingness, but in the case of both darkness experience is the same.

 

[Willamena]

I found that no difference exists between nothing and "true nothingness."

Hmm . . .

"Difference" is something, not nothing. "No difference" is not-something, or nothing. Hence, "nothing" exists between nothing and true nothingness, and so cannot be either the first nothing or the true nothingness. So, in fact, you've introduced a third nothing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hmm . . .

"Difference" is something, not nothing. "No difference" is not-something, or nothing. Hence, "nothing" exists between nothing and true nothingness, and so cannot be either the first nothing or the true nothingness. So, in fact, you've introduced a third nothing.

Something's been introduced, but I wouldn't call it "nothing."

 

[Runewolf1973]

Nothing does not exist, for everything is some thing. Therefore, this Universe did not just appear out of nothing, it appeared out of something. We just don't necessarily know what that something is or was. Even in the complete absence of that which we know as things, there is still something. I believe that something to be Potential.

 

[freethinker44]

Nothing does not exist, for everything is some thing. Therefore, this Universe did not just appear out of nothing, it appeared out of something. We just don't necessarily know what that something is or was. Even in the complete absence of that which we know as things, there is still something. I believe that something to be Potential.

This thread isn't really in the religious debate section, but...

The complete absence of all things is definitely a something, but that something isn't "potential", we call that something nothing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This thread isn't really in the religious debate section, but...

The complete absence of all things is definitely a something, but that something isn't "potential", we call that something nothing.

Sorry, was just using the Universe or (previously) God as examples. It is not my intention to bring religious debate into the conversation. I find the only way to really explain something is to give an example for what I mean. I call that something "potential". By calling it simply nothing, would mean that it does not exist, it is in essence a no-thing, not a thing nor even a something. Even in the absence of any thing, there is always the potential for there to exist some thing. Therefore, to me, that potential is the thing that exists when no other things exist. But that's just my own way of perceiving it. I don't always agree with the rationales of traditional philosophy, sometimes I prefer to think things through for myself. Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever...

How can you logically conclude that that which is "definitely a something" as you say, can be called "nothing"? That "definitely a something", I call potential. Therefore it also has the potential to change into something else. Everything that exists, even that absence of things, to me is potential. You asked in this thread what "nothing" is, so I am just giving you my opinion.

 

[freethinker44]

By calling it simply nothing, would mean that it does not exist, it is in essence a no-thing, not a thing nor even a something.

A "no-thing" is still a thing though right? Wouldn't something that doesn't exist, still exist in some sort of conceptual form? And if so, how were we able to form a concept about something that isn't there? Nothing is the very definition of non-existence, yet we can measure the size and shape of nothing, we can even see nothing (think a hole in a barrel), we can think about nothing, we can talk about nothing, we can even do nothing, yet in reality, nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is a paradox. It exists only when something knows of its non-existence, we apply attributes to it and use it describe.... nothing. The power of a concept and our ability to intuitively understand something but know nothing about it is amazing to me. Plus, it's fun to think about things like this.

 

[Quagmire]

"Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand"
---Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke.

 

[Runewolf1973]

A "no-thing" is still a thing though right? Wouldn't something that doesn't exist, still exist in some sort of conceptual form? And if so, how were we able to form a concept about something that isn't there? Nothing is the very definition of non-existence, yet we can measure the size and shape of nothing, we can even see nothing (think a hole in a barrel), we can think about nothing, we can talk about nothing, we can even do nothing, yet in reality, nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is a paradox. It exists only when something knows of its non-existence, we apply attributes to it and use it describe.... nothing. The power of a concept and our ability to intuitively understand something but know nothing about it is amazing to me. Plus, it's fun to think about things like this.

You are right it is quite a paradox.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I agree it is way over thinking it, but it is interesting to me that we can't describe nothing as something that doesn't exist, without first giving it existence and then taking the existence away.

The "paradox" that you see is predicated on our ability to interact with nothing. Complete nothingness does not exist. Complete nothingness lacks any and all qualities, attributable, ascribed, or otherwise. It lacks all potentiality and all actuality. It lacks all capability and ability to be conceived. The last part is the important part. We cannot actually conceive of pure Nothingness. It is an infinity. It is a "negative" infinity, but still an absolute. And our mind is fundamentally unprepared and unable to conceive of absolutes correctly. But more to the point as soon as we "conceive" of something, then it is no longer pure Nothingness.

As a thought experiment perhaps you can indulge yourself in trying to conceive of Infinite Apples. Everyone fails, but it is interesting to see how we fail...

MTF

 

[Nothing]

I see you are all talking about me so I figure that entitles me to post an opinion.

Nothing is what everything is not. I do not know what everything is not, nor do I know what everything is. I will never know what everything is, (and don't want to) but my one desire is to know what everything is not. If one did know everything, would it be an awakening into knowing that it all amounts to nothing? Too muck work if you ask me.
I like the first verse of the Tao in which Lao Tsu writes: The Tao does nothing, yet leaves nothing undone.
I believe God is nothing, more acurately, no-thing. Yet at the same time believe God is everything and therefore knows everything. This is a huge relief to me, since God knows everything I don't need to! All I need to do is reject everything I know until there is nothing left and then I will know myself completely as only God does.

 

[freethinker44]

I see you are all talking about me so I figure that entitles me to post an opinion.

Nothing is what everything is not.

How can everything and nothing be separate? If nothing is what everything is not, then you would be excluding nothing from everything, but if you exclude anything from everything can you really call it everything? If so, then this defintion is not quite complete since, in order to remain true to it's definition, everything must include all of nothing.



:drool: Lol, that one made my head hurt trying to think about it.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I could have sworn that I posted on this thread before, but if that is not the case, then so be it.


Pure nothingness does not exist. Pure nothingness cannot actually be conceived of. It lacks any and all qualities, capabilities, conceptuality, etc. So anything you can conceive is not in fact pure nothingness. Pure nothingness is a sort of "negative infinity." We are not capable of understanding infinities because we have no experience with them and do not have the memory/thinking capacity to be able to "reverse engineer" what all the qualities of an infinity can muster.


To suppose that just because we have a concept for something means that it actually exists is a fallacy and you all should know that. We have a concept for Unicorn, but that doesn't mean that there is a horned magical horse roaming around the forests of this world. So the concept of nothing is indeed something, but the actuality of nothing is that there is no actuality; there is no nothing. Because in order to actually be nothing there musn't be any nothing.

Empty space is not nothing. Empty space is potential. Nothing lacks all potentiality. Empty space allows for things to exist within it. Nothing does not allow for anything to do, be, or form anything (including itself). Nothing is a kind of absolute non-sequitur. It is impossible for nothing to be conceived of, so no matter the premises the conclusion will never logically follow.

MTF

 

[K.Venugopal]

Pure nothingness does not exist. Pure nothingness cannot actually be conceived of. It lacks any and all qualities, capabilities, conceptuality, etc. So anything you can conceive is not in fact pure nothingness. Pure nothingness is a sort of "negative infinity." We are not capable of understanding infinities because we have no experience with them and do not have the memory/thinking capacity to be able to "reverse engineer" what all the qualities of an infinity can muster.


To suppose that just because we have a concept for something means that it actually exists is a fallacy and you all should know that. We have a concept for Unicorn, but that doesn't mean that there is a horned magical horse roaming around the forests of this world. So the concept of nothing is indeed something, but the actuality of nothing is that there is no actuality; there is no nothing. Because in order to actually be nothing there musn't be any nothing.

Empty space is not nothing. Empty space is potential. Nothing lacks all potentiality. Empty space allows for things to exist within it. Nothing does not allow for anything to do, be, or form anything (including itself). Nothing is a kind of absolute non-sequitur. It is impossible for nothing to be conceived of, so no matter the premises the conclusion will never logically follow.

MTF

I would subscribe to what you've said - that there is no nothingness except that it is the potential for everything. May I ask you if you think there is such a thing as silence, as opposed to sound and whether sound and silence have an inseparable connection?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Nothingness isn't the potential for everything because in order to have pure nothingness you can't even have reality. Because as soon as you put something "inside of" reality, then potentiality comes into play. Nothingness is the absence of reality (entirely). It must be entirely "outside" of reality in order to actually be nothingness.


Sound and silence are related in as much as silence means there is a lack of sound. But pure nothingness is a lack of everything including reality (or whatever framework is setup to allow for things to exist). So even if we can "presume" that nothingness could somehow be "isolated" in space, then in that "space" (if it can be called that) reality would not apply.

MTF

 

[Thief]

So...........
I didn't see the word 'void' used in this thread.
Did I miss it?

Any participants here ever been blind? (seven days...accident with injury)
Anyone here know what it's like for your limbs to be numb and unresponsive?(loss of blood flow...temporary)
Anyone here ever use sensory deprivation?

The 'nothing' cannot be described.
Best bet so far...'void'.
No light...no shadow...no voice...no echo...etc.etc.etc.

No thought.

 

[freethinker44]

So...........
I didn't see the word 'void' used in this thread.
Did I miss it?

Any participants here ever been blind? (seven days...accident with injury)
Anyone here know what it's like for your limbs to be numb and unresponsive?(loss of blood flow...temporary)
Anyone here ever use sensory deprivation?

The 'nothing' cannot be described.
Best bet so far...'void'.
No light...no shadow...no voice...no echo...etc.etc.etc.

No thought.

A void is something, not nothing.

 

[Thief]

So I looked it up in Webster's...just for fun.
In the context of this thread...and its definition...I used the 'void' correctly.

 

[freethinker44]

I think you are missing the point of this thread. No one cares about what the dictionary definition of a void or nothing is, the issue is how does nothing be nothing without being something.

 

[Diederick]

That is ok for describing ideas, but what about physical objects. Like saying there is something in this area of space and nothing in this area of space. Does nothing occupy an area of space, and if so, couldn't we say there is something over here and the something over there is nothing?

I think space itself is something. But I guess, as in the example you replied, there can be nothing a thing in a space, like using the number '0'.

If nothing is the opposite of something, how can you describe nothing without calling it something?

I don't think you should say opposite, more like, lack of something. After all, the opposite of having 3 things in a room, is having -3 things in a room. Which is beyond 'nothing'.

Nothing is something that does not exist, we couls substitute something and say that which does not exist but that is just a superficial change, we are basically saying nothing is something that doesn't exist.

If we would not have the word 'nothing' since it apparently doesn't exist. What would we call 'absence of something'?

Nothing can be interpreted differently, there might be something, but not the thing you were looking for. Like being in a club looking for hot guys and all you find is chicks and some gothic dudes, you could say there was nothing in the club. But the club is something, and it is filled with things. Or you could be a construction supervisor and at the end of the day nothing changed while all the workers were there. You would say that they had done nothing all day, while they were actually breathing, and consumed quite a lot of coffee.
So another way is claiming an are is void of things, of matter and energy. There is absolutely nothing in blank space, would it exist. So nothing would be a place where there is not anything. But what is nothing? Time and space (as in dimension) are things, which are really everywhere. So nothing would be before anything existed. And perhaps there is a place where nothing still exists, which might be beyond the edge of the universe. Though I doubt there is such an edge and that there would be absolutely nothing after it (that is rather hard to comprehend).

So I guess you should define 'nothing' before this debate could go on. Saying I have no time is ridiculous, since there is always some time. And you always have air, dust, energy, time & space in your pockets, even though there is nothing else in them (like, say, a wallet).

Can there be no time and space? And would we then be speaking of a place or would that automatically eliminate it from being void of dimension? It would be a location, so I guess that counts as well.

I think impossibility is nothing, like the thoughts of a dead man, are absolutely nothing, because they don't exist. Perhaps non-existence is a better word than impossibility...

I love this thread already!