-I can not belive in nothing, althought i can‘t even stop seeing it.

Nothing is possibly something that not everyone able to experience via senses. ( - Wouldn‘t be the first thing what we heard about, isn‘t it?)

I’d said:
.

"A Materialist (aka metaphysical Physicalist, "Naturalist", or Nominalist) will say that there just is the physical world, and that it's just a brute-fact. We observe it, measure it, and it's there, and there's no explanation. Some people don't find that satisfactory.

But there's no such problem, nothing to explain, if, metaphysically, there isn't anything "concrete" and objectively-existent. ...if there's nothing but abstract facts.
And you have to admit that, if you believe that, metaphysically, at the metaphysical level, there's something "concrete", solid, objectively-existent, then you've got something to explain. Why is there something instead of Nothing?"

.
You said:
.

If the case were that there was nothing rather than something, then it would not even be possible to ask such a question - there being nothing is ask, and nothing to answer. Symmetrically, then, there is no burden to have to answer why there is something rather than nothing.

.
Of course that’s an answer that Lawrence Kuhn often got when he interviewed philosophers and physicists, asking them that question. Kuhn then pointed out that that doesn’t answer the question. Nothing is simpler, natural, and seems the default. Anything else requires an explanation. Yes, Nothing wouldn’t require any explanation, for more reasons than one. But Something seems to call for explanation.
.
You said:
.

The condition of nothing rather than something is not even a condition or state of affairs. Nothing is also no state of affairs at all.

.
Sure, a condition or a state is something, and an affair is something. So just “not anything”?
.
You said:
.

Things being concrete or objective is just a detail. If the world were purely conceptual and subjective, there still would have to BE a conceiver and subject to conceive.

.
Yes, it can be argued that even abstract facts are meaningful only in our experience. (more about that later in this reply)
.
You said:
.

Object/subject divisions are not questions about existence, but about perceptions of existence - as existence is a substrate of the ground of possibility of asking.

.
Sure. I’d been taking a fully Anti-Realist view. But then it occurred to me that maybe Anti-Realism has a problem with the meaning of “abstract” in “abstract facts”. Doesn’t “abstract” mean “considered without regard to anything else”? So, saying that abstract facts depend on our experience—doesn’t that contradict what “abstract” means? Shouldn’t philosophy be general, objective, and abstract enough to also look at abstract facts apart from our experience of them?
.
“Only our experience is relevant and real. …And ‘relevant’ and ‘real’ mean relevant and real to our experience.” ?
.
Sounds like blatant chauvinism.
.
...chauvinism as in the example that I’ve been using, in which the Giraffe proposes that the one with the longest neck get all the jellybeans.
.
Whether abstract facts can be real or existent without our experience of them depends on what we mean by “real” and “existent”. And those words don’t have agreed-upon definitions. So, since it’s just definitional, isn’t it moot?
.
So Anti-Realism can’t be an absolute position.
.
Isn’t it true that the most we can say about that is that our experience is what’s relevant and real to us?
.
Without judging the reality or existence of what isn’t in our experience, it’s reasonable speak of things in terms of our experience—because that’s what there is, for us, as experiencing beings.
.
…and that sounds similar to what you said:
.

Object/subject divisions are not questions about existence, but about perceptions of existence…

.
My answer to why there’s something (abstract facts) instead of Nothing, is that it’s because an abstract fact, or an inter-referring system of them, doesn’t need to appeal to, or have permission from, or have reality or existence in, any outside larger context. Nor does it need a medium in which to be true. That abstract fact, or inter-referring system of them can, and need only, be valid and meaningful in its own context.
.
So there couldn’t have not been abstract facts, and inter-referring systems of them.
.
…infinitely-many such systems.
.
As experiencers, it’s natural, and not wrong, for us to encounter and empirically define and describe everything in terms of our experience. …without chauvinistically decreeing meanings for the un-defined words “real” and “existent” in terms of our experience.
.
Michael Ossipoff

So your are a time-waster?

So your are a time-waster? — charleton

I do not know. Am I?

How did you get to this point?

PLONK!!

I hope you‘ re right! : )

Is that possible, that the so called Socrates used "Nothing" as the common multiple? ;)

If you want to understand The Nothing watch The Never-ending Story. Abstract philosophical concepts are useless. We are the nothing.

This reminds me of the p=np problem for some reason....
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?

Nothing is a word and it is the name of a concept that i find leads to confusion and paradox and confusion over semantics.
Nothing is similar to zero, it is like a place holder when nothing else should be substituted.
I imagine 'nothing' can be described in more ways than anything else can since it is beyond the infinite. I don't know that if two 'nothings' were together there would be any discernible boundary.

I think nothing is only a useful concept when compared to something else and I suspect to clarify there are more varieties of 'nothingness' than anyone could ever comprehend or make sense of. Nothing might logically be like the exception that proves the rule.

Clear definitions or descriptions of 'nothing' are only possible because there is something else. I mean nothing could be described for example as the gap between other things, kind of meaning that nothing is everywhere. It's a slippery beast, I'm glad I came across this question again, it's got me thinking.. Could nothing be everywhere and no-where at the same time? I mean nowhere must be a place if nothing could be there - semantics and limitations of language are restrictions i guess we all have to deal with when trying to discuss things like this.

8-)

In what other way can we make sense of N?

What other properties of N are there? — TheMadFool

Nothing could be everywhere because by adding nothing we are making no difference. All things being equal. Meaningless gibberish and speculation about unknown quantities or qualities say nothing.

Conversely, by taking something away, you could be said to be substituting nothing to a place where there used to be something else. I doubt such an action as 'substituting nothing to a place where there used to be something else' is physically possible in our universe though, it sounds like nonsense, but there always seems to be an alternative..
X-)

This conversation might go nowhere to replace the nothing that used to be there, if anyone takes anything from my comments I guess we are making progress, nothing is impossible.

doesn't it confuse you when you quantify N and realize that you have assigned it a property and it ceases to exist? — Myttenar

Nothing is real anyway. Nothing is everywhere. Nothing to focus on means no target, no subject, no 'N' to perceive and so no problem. The assumption that the future will resemble the past can never be proven, I guess that's because nothing is certain. It is surrounded by nothing when all things are encompassed - by 'it' i mean whatever it is that you are trying to define. Does anyone understand me? I often rant incoherently.

"doesn't it confuse you when you quantify N and realize that you have assigned it a property and it ceases to exist?
— Myttenar

Nothing is real anyway."

I apologize if you missed that, I was making a joke.

By "it"- I was referring to the quantified nothing, which has properties due to being quantified. Since nothing had been defined as having no properties by assigning value it is no longer nothing by definition.
Again, I found it humorous to picture a philosopher who has lost nothing in the literal sense and attempting to find it.

Hilarious to me, anyways.

Anyways, just so nobody can say I did not add to the idea, I believe that by creating a definition for "nothing" if you are having difficulty with the idea.

And I'm just going to point out here that nothing is, in fact not everywhere.
I think the problem here is the attempt to assign value to nothing when nothing is the lack of a thing with a value.
To say "nothing" exists is in itself a fallacy as nothing carries the definition as being the opposite of "something " which we can quantify.

I still think it's true that 'nothing' exists as a concept.. Or how else could we be talking about it? I think our disagreement is just an issue with semantics, not the actual subject matter. I don't think nothing is the opposite of something. More like the absence of something really.

Oh and I do find contradictory statements and paradoxes amusing just the same.

I'm under the impression that it is generally agreed by physicists that matter mostly consists of empty space.

It seems to me that there is always room to add something even if it is just more 'nothing' that you add or perhaps a kind of energy or potential?

And I'm just going to point out here that nothing is, in fact not everywhere. — Myttenar

Not much of a point saying this, but if you added nothing to every location, would you really be changing anything? I mean how could anyone know that nothing is not everywhere unless an example could be proven for which it is impossible to add nothing? I believe if it can happen it will or it already has.

To say "nothing" exists is in itself a fallacy as nothing carries the definition as being the opposite of "something " which we can quantify. — Myttenar

I see logic failing to explain things more often then it successfully proves anything.
One divided by zero can not be done unless you replace the zero with a slightly different version of nothing.

. Since nothing had been defined as having no properties by assigning value it is no longer nothing by definition. — Myttenar

If you ask me - and I know no-one has - our limitations are such that we have to 'invent' or 'create' properties for things in order to discuss them or perceive them. In any case there are many different ways to write 'nothing' - different fonts, different colours, different mediums for example and we shouldn't argue about the meaning being different unless we all genuinely recognize the differences.

I maintain that when 'nothing' is defined as the absence of something or in other words 'empty space' it is everywhere. We can always add something or substitute something and that is the essence of change. If nothing really had no properties it would still be a misnomer.

So, N is neither mental nor physical. It can't be a thought and neither is it a physical object. — TheMadFool

I believe there is literally nothing that can't be thought. There seems to be plenty of space for 'new' ideas here.. Nothing is impossible. If we discovered nothing we would have a tendency to fill in the gaps, it's in our nature..

what is nothing? - short video comparing nothingness scientifically

Perhaps nothing is part of what drives us to explore and/or learn? I imagine there is plenty of space between my ears.. :D
I think this is a fantastic question.

something from nothing - what zero really is and where it came from (in brief)
zero is not really a number 'nothing is not really a problem'

integers can be used for counting but zero apparently has more versatility or purpose than other integers

Things are. Nothing is not. "what is nothing" is a meaningless question like what is the colour of F-sharp, Or what does blue sound like.
Things have properties. Nothing has no properties, as having is a property of existing. Things exist; nothing does not exist and has no properties. Not having a property is not a property. — charleton

A good observation, and a strong argument, but does it mean we have nothing to talk about?

I say 'nothing is not' does not mean that 'nothing' can't be described. I mean if you think about it 'nothing is not' is a good example of how to describe nothing. I believe something that is not can change into something else either by way of 'unravelling' or by way of acquiring a different view point or a different means of perception. "What is nothing?" is asking for a description of something that you yourself have found a good way to describe, so even if the question is meaningless it can still be answered in a variety of ways which I would say means it is not mindless gibberish - it is a good question.

"what is nothing?" - 'nothing' is difficult to replicate and seems to be some sort of origin

A magician might say "there is nothing up my sleeves..".

From now on, 'nothing' will be my suspension of disbelief :D

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" — Myttenar

(I agree in some cases) But..

In response to what exactly?

If you are not present to make a point, that is evidence enough that you are not taking part in the conversation or simply missing the point..?

You might just as well try explicating that nothing is nothing and be content with that as a clear definition.

I'm not trying to say 'the absence of evidence is evidence of absence' it sounds like you've misunderstood me if you think you are disagreeing..? It sounds preposterous. Just because you can't find something doesn't necessarily mean that it must be somewhere else, but at the same time you can't conclude that something doesn't exist simply because it has never been discovered. You sound clever, I hope you have more to contribute..?

Forgive me for assuming the point was made, I should have expanded.

I believe an error is made when the idea of 0 is being regarded as a quantifiable object instead of a frame of reference.

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" — Myttenar

And I'm just going to point out here that nothing is, in fact not everywhere. — Myttenar

OK if you are into semantics, grammar, logic or the like.. how about this? You say nothing is not everywhere right? Doesn't that mean you are implying that at least in some places there is an absence of nothing? I have struggled with the concept of nothing for a while, but the concept of the absence of nothing is another story - at face value it seems to contradict itself. In a system where nothing exists the absence of nothing is impossible when absence itself is a version of nothing. Perhaps the logic is somehow flawed when trying to compare nothing with nothing? Someone please clarify..?

I guess maybe it can be proven that nothing simply doesn't exist, but I've never seen any proof. Strictly speaking I guess 'nothing' doesn't exist - there is always something. But the word still has meaning and that is what I thought we were supposed to be trying to establish.

"Doesn't that mean you are implying that at least in some places there is an absence of nothing?"

Well yes obviously, every place where something exists that is not nothing..


"I believe an error is made when the idea of 0 is being regarded as a quantifiable object instead of a frame of reference." - Myttenar

↪believenothing

"Doesn't that mean you are implying that at least in some places there is an absence of nothing?"

Well yes obviously, every place where something exists that is not nothing.. — Myttenar

Thanks

"I believe an error is made when the idea of 0 is being regarded as a quantifiable object instead of a frame of reference." — Myttenar

That would be a misguided definition of nothing.. I mean I agree. How about this then..? How can two nothings be compared? If they have different locations as is implied by an absence being possible then how could they be identical and how could a 'nothing' have a location anyway since it has no properties? Or are you suggesting that there is something everywhere?

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

I currently believe that 'nothing' is a self perpetuating origin but I would like to learn something that debunks this.. hey Myttenar..? You still breathing? ;)