• believenothing
    63
    I recently asked someone how two nothings could be compared and if there could really be two of them and he claimed to have an opinion but he was busy watching total recall.

    (
    Nothing must be everywhere and universal just like that 'ether' idea because under scrutiny it is always present.believenothing
    )

    I agree to this as part of my argumeny though the rest of this sentence made no sense to me.Myttenar

    If you imagine nothing and focus, keep it in your mind and continue then you might take it with you. Leave nothing behind and leave no stone unturned, there may be more to discover. For Pete's sake I'm ranting again but I thought I might try to explain the sentence you say made no sense to you.. I said 'under scrutiny it is always present' because whatever I think about is something I try to comprehend and grasp and if it wasn't there I couldn't observe it - any clearer? that 'ether' idea i refer to was touched on in the youtube link I posted earlier what is nothing?

    I guess speculation can be fruitful when 'theories' are tested, maybe time will tell?
  • believenothing
    63
    You are describing deja vu. I used to think it meant I had already died. Fascinating.
  • Maw
    142


    Nothing is word. A word that can mean a great many things, but within the context of this thread, attempting to hypostatize it's most literal meaning into some sort of physical reality is mere Munchausenian.
  • Perdidi Corpus
    18
    This question assumes that nothing is. How can nothing be? You are using the verb "to be" towards a not-subject which is neither a he, she nor it. Why would you be able to do that? Figuratively speaking, sure. You can get space to walk around you, the moon to extend its non existent arm of light, and the wind to whisper, but when asking a philosophical question, it makes no sense.
  • TheMadFool
    2k
    If you want to understand The Nothing watch The Never-ending Story. Abstract philosophical concepts are useless. We are the nothing.bloodninja

    I watched it a long time ago. I think it portrays NOTHING in a negative light - a destroyer - and that's how people generally see it. But, what of the positive aspects of NOTHING? Is NOTHING the prime evil in this world or does it also contain, within it, the seed of a new beginning?

    Anyways I just wanted to ask, doesn't it confuse you when you quantify N and realize that you have assigned it a property and it ceases to exist?Myttenar

    Yes, this is a problem with the definition of NOTHING - as NOT ANYTHING or NONEXISTENCE. But, properties need not be limited to only existence. As we've seen in this discussion zero is the quantitative property of NOTHING. Taken another way, perhaps numbers aren't properties.

    nothing is impossible.believenothing

    Here you use "nothing" to express the idea that "everything is possible". My English isn't first rate but what about another way of understanding your expression as in "NOTHING is impossible"? On this interpretation you would be saying that there is no such thing as NOTHING. It is this meaning of NOTHING I'm interested in.
  • bloodninja
    197
    I watched it a long time ago. I think it portrays NOTHING in a negative light - a destroyer - and that's how people generally see it. But, what of the positive aspects of NOTHING? Is NOTHING the prime evil in this world or does it also contain, within it, the seed of a new beginning?TheMadFool

    Interesting response. Yes the phenomenon of the nothing must also have positive aspects. I think genius like Einstein and Nietzsche for example, as well as authenticity proper is precisely living with a certain openness toward the nothing. That is, disclosing new worlds (being) is only possible on the basis of the nothing. Bare with me. I don't fully understand myself yet... my thoughts aren't crystal clear
  • bloodninja
    197
    For anyone who's interested. Heidegger on the nothing.
  • charleton
    843

    I think you are confusing meaning.
    There is a difference between 1) I believe in nothing, 2) I believe there is nothing, and 3) I believe nothing.
  • Existenceofthenothingness
    2
    Hi MadFool before I start helping you out with this, I Just want to tell you that you picked the right name to be making this type of questions, you have to be MAD AND A FOOL to be trying to know whats nothing! With this said let me get started.

    Just like you said lets put Nothing as (N.).
    Mental (M).
    Physical (P) But lets talk physical in senses ((Sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch)) (P=S)

    Ok with this said let me put some other variables under each category and (M), (S) under one category (U) for Universe

    *(M)
    -Life (LM), Death (DM), Time (TM), Space (SM), Thoughts ((Good, evil, peace, war, fate, faith, hunger, sickness, family, religion, creation, destination, end, reality, perspective, relativity, high or low etc)) (TS),
    *(S)
    --Life (LS), Death (DS), Time (TS), Space (SS), Senses ((Good, evil, peace, war, fate, faith, hunger, sickness, family, religion, creation, destination, end, reality, perspective, relativity, high or low etc)) (SSS),

    If we start considering that (M) and (S) conform the Universe (U), we need to start digging to find how can (N.) exist in the (E), but that seems impossible because if theres something, nothing already doesn't exist.

    But theres something weird going on, I'm using one word to much in the last paragraph "exist", thats a whole new realm, Existence (E).

    Now I'm about to enter into the super duper really interesting stuff, so if you really want to know whats the Nothing I need you to be open to all possibilities, only use ur previous knowledge to find out ur own thoughts about it and how can u get there, but never to say that its not truth.

    The Nothingness (N.) is not something that exist here in (U) they are each other counter parts!

    If we consider (U) the infinite creator of everything (M)(S), it doesn't have an end or neither beginning, is infinite with everything in it, everything that will ever be, and everything that will ever come, all past, all present, and all future, we can assume that at this moment we are at the pick of how big the (U) is, but we are also the smallest we will ever be, how come (U) that its everything create (N.).

    So if (U) can't create (N.) because the moment something is created, (N.) is no longer (N.), and (N.) never existed because then if at some moment (N.) was (N.) and then (U) it was just (U-TM-TS), it becomes something that was always part of (U) that it seemed to be (N.), this means that if (N.) really exist it has to be outside of (U).

    So in order for (N.) to exist it has to be outside (U), which would mean that (N.) and (U) are counterparts,
    both are Existence (E)

    Aight this might seem a little weird because I'm changing the style of writing to fit more to what my brain is trying to help you with this question,

    Once upon a time i though that life was everything that there is, it was the biggest thing ever, life was me and life was everything, so I thought if i was life it self I was God, but thinking that life was all that there is was so foolish of me, I was so naive to think that God was alive or dead, I was so stupid really to think God needed life hahahaha, how stupid! I had planed my hole philosophy in the search of the truth of life, wanting to create my one government with the ideal of the whole propose of the nation and its people to find LIFE to be LIFE, that would have been the main mission to give people to the the answer of where life comes from ( before I thought it was God).

    But now I know for sure that God didn't create anything. But GOD DOES exist and its PERFECTION the PERFECTION that can only come from nothingness.

    Theres a saying that u most have heard for sure and it goes like this " nothing is perfect", before I just to really use this other quote to emphasize that life was every thing " the only thing for sure in life is dead" i use this quote to explain that life was everything because for death to exist there needs to be life first, but if I Use this same process with this "NOTHING IS PERFECT" the only thing perfect is nothing or the nothingness, but if you also have really paid attention, I wrote this on this same paragraph "in order for dead to exist theres need to be life first", if you have paid attention theres a particular word on this quote and it is "EXIST" so therefore in order for life to Exist there should be EXISTENCE!

    So if existence exist before life, this comes to be the realm of GOD (using god as the answer to what science can't) but what is existence then if its bigger than life and death, and if its greater than life and death, does this means existence is also greater than space, time, reality? Yes but theres also a limit to what it is not greater than, the Universe. or is it?

    Lets talk about the UNIVERSE, the universe is everything that its and everything that will ever be, or is it? If light exist theres also darkness, if life exist theres also death, and if The UNIVERSE exist (which is everything) there should be the Nothingness!

    Plato and Aristotle just to discuss weather we come from our reasoning or our senses, weather we had an idea first which comes from the perfect idea or we had our senses provide us with the first image in our brain, this made me have a crazy though what would have been in side somebodies brain that doesn't have any senses, does he have anything in there? I realize that if anything was in there its GOD! Existence, in the NOTHINGNESS
  • TheMadFool
    2k
    Interesting response. Yes the phenomenon of the nothing must also have positive aspects. I think genius like Einstein and Nietzsche for example, as well as authenticity proper is precisely living with a certain openness toward the nothing. That is, disclosing new worlds (being) is only possible on the basis of the nothing. Bare with me. I don't fully understand myself yet... my thoughts aren't crystal clearbloodninja

    In my OP I've given a rough outline of how NOTHING is useful to us; from simplifying expressions (e.g. using ''nothing is perfect'' instead of ''everything is imperfect'') to setting boundaries (e.g. ''nothing is taller than mount Everest'').

    Could it be that I'm making a mistake by trying to understand NOTHING when it could be that ''nothing'' is only a grammatical entity like ''the'' or ''on''?

    Thanks for your post. I must confess I didn't understand it completely. Why did you introduce God into the discussion? If I'm correct most religious folks would say that NOTHING is the opposite of God, who is EVERYTHING.
  • Vajk
    119


    Could it be that I'm making a mistake by trying to understand NOTHING when it could be that ''nothing'' is only a grammatical entity like ''the'' or ''on''?TheMadFool

    I suggest you, to not underestimate Nothing/anything.

    If I'm correct most religious folks would say that NOTHING is the opposite of God, who is EVERYTHINGTheMadFool

    Perhaps they will share their thougths on this intrtesting topic.



    This qustion is for everyone who is intrested in it:

    Is it possible that Nothing is the source of Everything?
  • believenothing
    63
    The great ineffable unheard of..
    Nothing is simply undiscovered I recon.
  • bioazer
    25
    What is NOTHING ( N )?TheMadFool

    Nothing isn't, in fact.
  • bioazer
    25

    I'm kidding.
    Nothing is an idea. That's it. That's all it is. "Nothing" is how we conceptualize an absence of a specific thing or things within a given context. The confusion here seems to stem from the paradox of "nothing" being a conceptual "something," (an idea), because perhaps you imagine it to mean "the total absence of all things." It's doesn't. And even if it did, it's a self-defeating definition. It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity.
  • believenothing
    63
    Nothing is an idea. That's it. That's all it is. "Nothing" is how we conceptualize an absence of a specific thing or things within a given context. The confusion here seems to stem from the paradox of "nothing" being a conceptual "something," (an idea), because perhaps you imagine it to mean "the total absence of all things." It's doesn't. And even if it did, it's a self-defeating definition. It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity.bioazer

    Most ideas are indescribable really, why should 'nothing' be singled out? I like your slant.
    Saying something is indescribable is just a (confusing) way to describe it.. Whatever 'nothing' is or isn't, depends on the context - we seem to agree there. When you describe an idea or define it, it somehow loses something in translation. After-all, however simple an idea might seem to one person, any attempt to explain it is always open to interpretations.
  • Vajk
    119


    So, if we stick to the philosophical context, it refers to the absence of Ideas?
  • TheMadFool
    2k
    I'm kidding.
    Nothing is an idea. That's it. That's all it is. "Nothing" is how we conceptualize an absence of a specific thing or things within a given context. The confusion here seems to stem from the paradox of "nothing" being a conceptual "something," (an idea), because perhaps you imagine it to mean "the total absence of all things." It's doesn't. And even if it did, it's a self-defeating definition. It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity
    bioazer

    I understand the problem. NOTHING, defined as nonexistence, is difficult to grasp. We're in the habit of or are confined to understanding in terms of attributes/properties which, by far, are positive in nature. What I mean is we need some attributes that are attached to a concept or object and only then do we even begin to understand them. However, unlike most objects (mental/physical) NOTHING is defined in the negative. In fact it is the ultimate negative - the absence of everything. In a way we could say "There's NOTHING to understand."

    However, I'd like to understand NOTHING. This probably doesn't make sense give what I've said above but I have commented on how math can make sense of NOTHING by equating it to zero. One member said that there's a difference between NOTHING and zero. The former has NO properties while zero has many mathematical properties. So, zero, strictly speaking, is not actually NOTHING. We could say, then, that zero is the quantitative property of NOTHING. Are we getting somewhere?

    NOTHING can also be understood as setting the boundaries of classes/categories. Everything in our finite world sits between extremes - smallest-biggest, shortest-tallest, God-Devil, etc. In such a finite world, NOTHING sets boundaries to classes/categories. For instance, NOTHING is more powerful than God. NOTHING is taller than mount Everest, etc. Can we then assign this boundary demarcating property to NOTHING?

    NOTHING is NOT an idea for the simple reason that ideas exist in our minds while NOTHING is nonexistence. I think "nothing", the word, is quite different from other words. Other words have physical/mental referents but "nothing", by definition, lacks any referent. NOTHING exists beyond the mental and the physical.
  • bioazer
    25

    If "NOTHING" does not exist as an idea, then how are we discussing it?
    You are correct. There is NOTHING to understand, because as I stated before, NOTHING as you understand it has no properties and inherently is indescribable.
    How does it make sense to describe the number zero as a "property" of NOTHING? They are two completely disparate concepts-- zero, in fact, more closely resembles my definition of NOTHING. It is purely ideological, and represents, in different contexts, different degrees and types of absence. Your NOTHING is nothing more than a semantic paradox; it has nothing to do with zero, and is more analogous to the Liar Paradox. It is a self-referential logical error.
  • Vajk
    119


    Perhaps it is the most sophisticated idea of the nonexistent, don't you think?
  • believenothing
    63
    So, if we stick to the philosophical context, it refers to the absence of Ideas?Vajk

    It deteriorates into nonsense: you can't describe a thing that by definition must be indescribable. It's kind of like trying to count to infinity.bioazer

    As I continue to struggle with finding a good way to answer this question 'what is nothing?', I begin to see that it has a lot to do with grammar, which was never my forte. Strictly philosophically, I would say nothing is a substitute. If you don't comprehend, then perhaps there is nothing where your understanding should be? It seems sensible to describe nothing as an absence of ideas, yes - philosophically.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.