• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The following definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster

    1. Nothing: not any thing; no thing

    2. Concept: something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION

    That there's a definition of Nothing means, at the very least, that it's a concept.

    Nothing is, by definition, not any thing; no thing. So Nothing can't be a concept because a concept is a thing and Nothing is not any thing.

    What we have on our hands (Nothing) is a concept of what can't be a concept. Paradox!

    1. Nothing can't be any thing. [Argument A]

    So,

    2. Nothing can't be a concept [Argument B]

    3. If Nothing can't be a concept then Nothing can't be conceived by the mind

    Ergo,

    4. Nothing can't be conceived by the mind


    5. If there's a definition of Nothing then Nothing can be conceived by the mind [Argument C]

    6. There's a definition of Nothing

    Ergo

    7. Nothing can be conceived by the mind

    We arrive at a contradiction:

    4. Nothing can't be conceived by the mind AND Nothing can be conceived by the mind

    This is the paradox.
  • Leghorn
    577
    It’s similar to the old paradox “moderation in everything”...does that include moderation itself?
  • Leghorn
    577
    The “concept” is not “nothing”, but rather “the definition of ‘nothing’”; that should unravel the paradox.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The “concept” is not “nothing”, but rather “the definition of ‘nothing’”; that should unravel the paradox.Todd Martin

    The definition describes the concept.
  • Leghorn
    577
    But the concept is different from the thing it comprehends...
    I can conceive of the concept “nothingness”, but if I “conceive of nothing”, that only means I’m not thinking of anything at the time; it is a problem of semantics merely, not being or reality.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    But the concept is different from the thing it comprehends...
    I can conceive of the concept “nothingness”, but if I “conceive of nothing”, that only means I’m not thinking of anything at the time; it is a problem of semantics merely, not being or reality.
    Todd Martin

    Yes, that's an important point I'm grappling with at the moment. The concept is different to the thing the concept is about. For instance the concept human is not itself a human.

    However, take a moment to consider what Nothing is defined as - it can't be anything and that means it can't also be a concept. Since it can't be denied that Nothing isn't a concept for it is, we have to conclude that Nothing is a concept of a non-concept. Is this not a paradox? It's like saying the beauty of ugliness or the bravery of cowardice and so on.
  • Leghorn
    577
    In other words, it is not “nothing” that is the “concept”, but rather “nothingness”, the quality of being nothing...
    For example, if I conceive of the thing that we call a “tree”, I don’t refer in my mind to the elm in my front yard, but to a generalized concept that has particular examples that exist everywhere in the world, and have certain properties peculiar to the species subsumed under that name...
    Likewise, “nothing” may refer to the absence of any of a number of certain particular things, but when I conceive of “nothing” as a concept, I am thinking of a generalization, like the earlier mentioned “tree”, a thing that might more accurately be termed as “tree-ness”, or “arborality”, or “dendriteness”, as I made the distinction earlier b/w “nothing” and “nothingness”.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I do get your point. However, Nothing, as a concept, isn't the same as the concept Tree.

    Let me try another way of arguing my point.

    1. Nothing can't be any thing. [Argument A]

    So,

    2. Nothing can't be a concept [Argument B]

    3. If Nothing can't be a concept then Nothing can't be conceived by the mind

    Ergo,

    4. Nothing can't be conceived by the mind


    5. If there's a definition of Nothing then Nothing can be conceived by the mind [Argument C]

    6. There's a definition of Nothing

    Ergo

    7. Nothing can be conceived by the mind

    We arrive at a contradiction:

    4. Nothing can't be conceived by the mind AND Nothing can be conceived by the mind

    This is the paradox.
  • Leghorn
    577
    The “beauty of ugliness” makes me think of Socrates, as he, in Plato’s dialogues, led his aristocratic interlocutors to consider how a wooden spoon, for example, is more “beautiful” than a golden one, because it is more serviceable in cooking...

    ...it also leads me to think of how, when I see an old beat-up pickup truck run down the road, with mud caked inside the wheel-wells, I think how beautiful it is compared to the new unblemished ones that are washed regularly at laser car washes, and never taken out into the boondocks to haul firewood or lumber.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Your life is more colorful than mine.
  • Leghorn
    577
    Ha ha!...that made me laugh...

    Describe to me the “color” of your peculiar life, and, you mad fool, I will (I promise) return the favor.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Describe to me the “color” of your peculiar life, and, you mad fool, I will (I promise) return the favor.Todd Martin

    Black as coal but I'm what people might call an eternal optimist. Hoping it's some kind of yin-yang thing and white, even greyish will do, will follow at some point. :sad:
  • Book273
    768
    Consider "nothing" as the vocabulary equivalent of the numerical value 0. Functional as a descriptor to identify a lack of something, which, theoretically should be there, but isn't. However, once context is removed, is worth...itself.
  • Book273
    768
    A life well lived is far more beautiful than one preserved and untarnished; for spoons and people.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Consider "nothing" as the vocabulary equivalent of the numerical value 0. Functional as a descriptor to identify a lack of something, which, theoretically should be there, but isn't. However, once context is removed, is worth...itself.Book273

    I see. So, Nothing is like zero. But Nothing isn't like zero. Try solving the equation x = x + 1. Is it zero or is it Nothing? Are the two the same?

    Zero is, to me, the quantitative abstraction of empty sets. Nothing can't be a set, let alone the empty set, for sets are things (conceptual entities) but Nothing is not any thing, not even concepts. Being so, it can't/shouldn't be conceivable to the mind and yet we have a definition which implies we can conceive of it. Paradox? :chin:

    If you feel that I'm repeating myself, kindly ignore this post.
  • Book273
    768
    Nothing is a term applied to a concept, therefore, label-wise, Nothing exists. Conceptually nothing also exists, as a concept. However, as a reality, you are correct, nothing is a paradox as one is unable to see or determine "nothing"; as anything that is determined to exist becomes something, thereby no longer remaining as nothing.

    He he he. Fun post!
  • Book273
    768
    Try solving the equation x = x + 1TheMadFool

    Math issue there. X=X+1 can never be true. It doesn't matter what you substitute in for x. Just saying...
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    The following definitions are taken from Merriam-WebsterTheMadFool

    Simple solution. Merriam-Webster is nothing and so cannot be conceived by the mind. Therefore, nothing can now be conceived by the mind.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Nothing is a term applied to a concept, therefore, label-wise, Nothing exists.Book273

    Label-wise doesn't do the trick. Nothing is not any thing. Labels are things and so can't be Nothing.

    As I said, Nothing isn't/can't be a concept, in fact it can't be any thing.. That should end any and all conversations on Nothing for nothing physical (matter & energy) and nothing mental (thoughts) can be Nothing. Is there anything other than the physical world and the mental world?

    Math issue there. X=X+1 can never be trueBook273

    I could reframe the question for you. What's the value of X?
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    I could reframe the question for you. What's the value of X?TheMadFool

    It would have to be a dynamic value. Which defeats the purpose of placeholder constants in the first place. Entropy, half-life, etc?
  • Book273
    768
    The value of X is not relevant. Whatever the value of it is determined to be, dynamic or static, adding one to it will not make it equal to what it was prior to the adding of one.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The value of X is not relevant.Book273

    Be inventive, unleash your creativity. What is the answer that makes the most sense? I'll give you some options:

    1. Something
    2. Nothing
    3. Infinity
    4. Zero
  • Outlander
    1.8k


    *long sigh*

    1. Yes obviously something will always be something +1.
    2. No.
    3. No?
    4. See 2.
  • Book273
    768
    I appreciate the options. However, the end result is the same.
    Unless X is that which destroys anything added to it while remaining unchanged. THAT would result in a true statement of x=x+1 (or x+ anything frankly) otherwise...the math is non-functional.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    *long sigh*

    1. Yes obviously something will always be something +1.
    2. No.
    3. No?
    4. See 2.
    Outlander

    Something + 1 = Something?

    Something = 9

    9 + 1 = 9? :chin:

    So, you mean to say there's something (remember it has to be a finite number) such that that something, when you add 1 to it, it doesn't change?

    Infinity + 1 = Infinity but we can't get to that with thd allowed mathematical operations on an equation like x = x+ 1.

    Thanks for the interesting replies though. :up:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Why can't you answer the question, what is the value of x? It's a rather simple question. I'll pare down the options to make it easier.

    1. x can be something
    2. x can be nothing

    What is the value of x?
  • Book273
    768
    I did answer the question. You may not like my answer, however, that does not alter the fact that it is an answer.
  • EricH
    578

    1. Something
    2. Nothing
    3. Infinity
    4. Zero
    TheMadFool

    For completeness, you might want to add this choice:

    5. The question is wrong / illogical
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    For completeness, you might want to add this choice:

    5. The question is wrong / illogical
    EricH

    Indeed, you're right but here's how I look at it. A question has been asked viz. "what is the value of x?" The bottomline is the answer has to be quantitative for it's a mathematical question. The answer has to be a finite number because mathematical operations with infinity haven't been defined. But we soon come to realize that there's no finite number that satisfies the equation x = x + 1. So, x isn't a quantity and it isn't a quality (non-quantity). The universe we know of is exhausted in terms of quantity and non-quantity. So, x has to be nothing.
  • Mijin
    123
    Once again, this kind of train of thought is more linguistic that ontological.

    Consider that not all languages even have a word for "nothing"; many languages just have a word for logical negation, and a word for something. Most likely English was like this at some point, but eventually we contracted "no" and "thing" into a discrete noun.

    But it's a special noun. If I say "There's nothing to be afraid of", I am not saying be afraid of one thing, that I am calling "nothing". I am saying logical-NOT( there is something to be afraid of )

    A lot of the problem with the OP (and most of the other threads with the word "nothing" in the title) is in treating it as some discrete entity unto itself.
  • EricH
    578

    I'm not following your logic. You agree with me that the question is wrong/illogical - i.e., the question has no meaning. And yet you go ahead and attempt to answer it anyway.

    A question has been askedTheMadFool

    No - a question has not been asked. A bunch of disconnected words have have been strung together and a question mark has been placed at the end. It may be some form of poetry - maybe analogous to religious talk - but it is not subject to any logical analysis.
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.