Hi and welcome to the forum! What is your OP?

Hi, Frist the concept of nothingness needs to be accepted. My definition of nothingness could be explained as a theory that is form with the sum of all absences, an absence being a comparation between different symetric planes where one part is missing.

I'd be interested in you laying out that argument, or at least the definitions you want to make the argument.

So explain your point. Put out the definitions and say your bit.

basically is about nothingness being an non physical entity, therefore anything worldy that resembles nothingness is not physical even if it is in the world.

Then the question of how something not physical can came up in the world if everything involving worldy experience seems physically could be answered by a gate between mind theory of nothingness and world, that gate is what I and some people describe as consciousness.

One way I thought of how can nothingness be a part of a world is by thinking of reencarnation.
I argue reencarnation as the probability of existence after death based on the actual existence after being. I put death and being born with similar connotations because both resemble me of nothingness. This resemblance with nothing is the argument of a non physical prove on world that is created in the mind and tied with consciousness.

Let me know if I can clarify anything.

I'm going to try and rephrase what you're saying to see if I'm understanding.

Nothingness is non physical and anything which resembles nothingness shares the property "non-physical".

Birth and death resemble nothingness.

Therefore there are nonphysical entities or parts of the world, namely whatever parts are associated with birth and death.

***

That much I'm parsing. What I'm not parsing is how you get to the mind being this nothingness and how reincarnation is the best example for demonstrating that consciousness just is this nothingness, and then from that assertion i don't see how you can conclude that the world is created by the mind.


Sartre's theory of consciousness might be of interest to you because he ties consciousness to nothingness, but it may also not appeal because it reads to me like it would conflict with any belief in reincarnation.

the mental representation of an absence presented by two different planes or spaces one with the thing(phenomen) and parallel space with some part missing, pure nothingness is perceived only in the sum of all possibilities of absence. The controversy could be that absence could not bring awareness or not be treated alone, I not see a clear argument against that, is an actual fact that the mind can act upon an individual absence, therefore why not upon a sum of them

↪Moliere the mental representation of an absence presented by two different planes or spaces one with the thing(phenomen) and parallel space with some part missing, pure nothingness is perceived only in the sum of all possibilities of absence. The controversy could be that absence could not bring awareness or not be treated alone, I not see a clear argument against that, is an actual fact that the mind can act upon an individual absence, therefore why not upon a sum of them — Danileo

↪Moliere the mental representation of an absence presented by two different planes or spaces one with the thing(phenomen) and parallel space with some part missing, pure nothingness is perceived only in the sum of all possibilities of absence. — Danileo

I'm making guesses.

In trying to parse this I think "the mental representation of an absence" must be both birth and death, and in some sense birth and death are the two different planes/spaces, one with the thing and one without the thing.

Nothingness is perceived by the sum of possible absences -- why "sum"?

Couldn't one perceive nothingness in only one instance? Suppose I walk into a room looking for Peter, and Peter is not there -- then is that not an absence I perceive?

about birth and death, exactly they are different; one occuring after nothing (birth)and other occurring theoretically before nothing ( death), so they share same relationship with total nothing.

About your second claim, you are right, sometimes I say nothingness when I really want to mean total nothing

Cool.

So, care to rephrase everything into a coherent whole? Or are we just confused now?

yea I am confused, I am starting to rethink nothingness as the "other stuff" that is not a symmetric relationship, and giving the non physical property to the symmetric relationship.

:up:

If you can accept when you are confused that you are confused and express and rethink, you've found the right place. Welcome to TPF, or at least philosophical thinking.