That ends any further conversation, then. — Banno

What, so the point is the symbols, not what they refer to? That's absurd.

I think we approximate such as state if we attempt to remember a bit what existence was like prior to birth, or the instance before our first conscious experience.

But while awake and alive, it is somewhat more difficult to do so, assuming dreamless sleep is in now way similar to nothingness, which sounds wrong to me.

But then I could be wrong in this latter intuition, don't think I'm wrong about my former one. But, we cannot be certain.

I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino

I thought about it again, and Nothingness must be always about something. Nothingness also implies that it has its past and past existence. But some change took place, which replaced something to nothing.

For example, I had the biscuits in the tin. When the biscuits were all eaten, there was nothing in the tin.
The thing = biscuits were replaced by the nothingness.

So nothingness exists. It has its properties too, which is emptiness and nothingness.

Now absolute nothingness is a strange concept. Absolute nothingness implies there is nothing in real absolute sense. There is no tin, no biscuits, no me, and no world. Hence it is an oxymoron, or the state of the universe before its birth. If it is Absolute Nothingness of oxymoron, then Hume would want to throw it away to the flames in his wood burning stove. But because it is absolute nothing, he might not quite be able to do that, or he doesn't need to.

If it is the state of the universe before its birth, then it is unknowable, hence it is Thing-in-Itself of Kantian terms.

That still necessitates change; the change from experiencing a moment subconsciously to experiencing it consciously. — Ø implies everything

Maybe not. The conscious and subconscious experiences may be simultaneous, the subconscious in the background. Transition from moment to moment may be just an impression, a feeling.

But I think I've ruled out eternalism as self-contradictory, which means there must be real change. — Ø implies everything

I am not sure it is self-contradictory.

The conscious and subconscious experiences may be simultaneous, — litewave

How could that be? I am definitely not conscious of my experience 10 minutes ago. Either I am, or I am not; there is no in between. And the fact is, at some point I was, but I no longer am. That's change.

I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino

Or if we make a very unusual inference that there is such a thing as Absolute Nothingness, I think it has to be the space. Space is nothing, and it is absolutely nothing. That nothingness is what makes all the the other things exist.

So space has to exist as absolute nothingness for anything else to exist in it such as all the particles, molecules and atoms (if they did exist), and all the livings and physical objects and the planets and stars, air, sea and lights and waves. So it is a precondition of the whole universe. In reality and actuality, the universe exists, therefore Absolute Nothingness must exists too!!

what are concepts, apart from the words you use? If I string words together, do I thereby make a new concept? Ostracised nothingness? Absolute parricide?

Writing "absolute" in front of "nothing" only serves to obfuscate. — Banno

Concepts are actual experiences. They are the product of the mind directly referencing some part of reality (be it abstract or concrete). To communicate them, we map these concepts to words. The words then gain a life of their own, which is fine, as long as one capable of putting aside the holiday luggage.

what are concepts, apart from the words you use? — Banno

This is quite ironic. What are words, without the concepts to which they refer? Do you suggest that the space of concepts (or words, as you conflate them to) exemplify śūnyatā? Words just referring to other words referring to other words ad infinitum (and/or in circles), never gaining the import of reality? Strange how we seem to use communication in reliably navigating reality. Strange how we actually experience concepts as they are. How do you even start a closed, meaningless network of words/concepts without some kernel of reality to set it off to begin with?

A square is a square, and a square is a string of letters. They are not the same.

How could that be? I am definitely not conscious of my experience 10 minutes ago. Either I am, or I am not; there is no in between. And the fact is, at some point I was, but I no longer am. That's change. — Ø implies everything

You can have different experiences simultaneously, like hearing a sound, seeing something, experiencing a memory and an anticipation, and having the feeling of passage of time. Some of these experiences may feel more salient while others may feel vague or subconscious.

If cognizant organisms did not operate with some basic logic, then a predator could be attacking them AND not attacking them at the same time. Given that those conditions have different response procedures (be they automatic or not), their mind has to, one some level, treat the condition binarily. It's logic, however basic. — Ø implies everything

In the case of ravens using cars to crush nuts, why think it is a matter of logic rather than pattern recognition? (Which is a more basic aspect of neural network behavior than is logic) How do you know you aren't projecting?

In the case of your quoted statement, I'm thinking fight or flight responses aren't something I'd see as a particularly good example of logical reasoning, but more as evidence of the machine inside the ghost. Again, the question of projecting logic, on something more complex than simple logic, comes to mind for me.

Concepts are actual experiences... — Ø implies everything

Think about that. So the concept seven, the concept money, the concept chalk, the concept galaxy - these are all and each, experiences?

And the concept experience - that's also an experience?

Maybe take a look at the alternatives to such an obtuse notion - see the Stanford entry. There's quite a bit to the notion of "concept" - certainly more than just "mental representations".

Doing philosophy might be a bit harder than you supose.

"If therefore we begin with the contingent, we must not set out from it as something that remains fixed in such a way that in the progression it continues to have being. This is only one side of its determinateness; rather it is to be posited in its full determinate character, which means that non-being may just as well be attributed to it and that consequently it enters into the result as a passing away. Not because the contingent is, but rather because it is non-being, only appearance, because its being is not genuine actuality- it is because of this that absolute necessity is. The latter is its being and truth." Hegel, Lectures on the proofs of the existencebof God, Oxford University Press, pg. 114

Does the opposite of this world exist?

For something to exist/be true, it must be
a thing. — Ø implies everything

The problem with this is that 'nothing' is NOT a thing, it is the LACK of a thing. However, lack of something can be true. For example, black is the lack/or absence of light, but it is still true that it is black and lacking light. Nothing is the lack of a thing, but it is still true that it is nothing and lacking a thing.

Bearing this in mind, if we alter your statement to take this into account, we get:

"For ‘nothing’ to be true there must not be a thing."

This seems to make sense to me. (unless I am missing something?) Obviously, when I say 'nothing' I mean the concept of lack of a thing, not 'nothing being true'. Using 'nothing' in sentences can appear to have many meanings, which confuses things somewhat!

If there "was" absolute nothingness, there would be no definition, no contradiction, no nothing — Ø implies everything

If absolute nothingness was a truth, then there would be no definition because there would be no humans to give it a definition. However, it would not make it any less true or lacking in something.

You see, absolute nothingness is only impossible if there is something to begin with. — Ø implies everything

I have been trying to figure out what you were getting at here. Breaking this down, in this sentence, if we take out “only,” and “to begin with” then we get, “absolute nothingness is impossible if there is something.” Of course. This is clearly correct; you just defined nothingness.

Now, if we take into account the word ‘only’, this suggests that there are circumstances when absolute nothingness IS possible, such as if you swap your sentence around to say, “absolute nothingness IS possible if there is NOT something.” This is also very true, but also very obvious. I am guessing you must be getting at more than just this.

So, now if we consider “to begin with”, if there was nothing to begin with, then there would be nothing, which is what absolute nothingness requires. The only thing I can think of that you might mean is that, if nothingness is lack of something then you must have something to take away, to make it lacking??? But, hmmm. Why can it not be so that there was nothing, or lack of even one thing, to start with? ? I cannot see any reason why absolute nothingness would be hypothetically impossible, and therefore, there does not appear to be a circular reasoning...as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong???

As far as I can see, the options we have regarding this are these… I think, but there may be more that I just haven’t thought of…

• Absolute nothingness
• Absolute something AND nothingness
• Absolute somethingness (Okay, I should probably take the ‘ness’ off this, but I just like the way it sounds and fits in with all the above.)

Strangely, I think that maybe the last one, absolute somethingness, would be the only impossible one. This is why: I believe that we are currently, in the absolute something and nothingness stage. This is because,

physically, there are fields everywhere inundating empty space. — jgill

That is self-contradictory. The space is not empty if there are fields in it. These kinds of retorts seem to rise from a confusion of exactly how absolute the absolute nothingness is. We are talking "about" the inexistence of anything definable and undefinable; the inexistence of absolutely everything.
— Ø implies everything — jgill

Okay, I think we understand the concept of absolute nothingness, but strangely enough, it is the 'fields' of empty space, or areas of nothing, in our universe that appear to be preventing absolute nothingness. If one day, for some reason, those fields of nothingness disappeared, then there would be absolute nothingness. (An idea that seems so ironic) This is because the fields of nothing, such as the vacuums we find in outer space and in the very fabric of the atoms that everything is made from, are the reason why things are held apart. If things were not held apart, then everything would cancel itself out and we would have absolute nothingness... in our universe at least—I cannot say about other universes, if there are such things. (NOTE I have covered why everything would cancel itself out in another post. I have included it here at the end of this post, but it can be skipped if you already know why.)

To sum up, it would seem as if absolute nothingness could hypothetically exist, and may have previously existed. We know that absolute something AND nothingness can exist because we are living it now, but it seems as if absolute somethingness might be impossible because, once you put EVERYTHING together without any spaces between things, then everything cancels itself out. (Either that or it would become unimaginably crowded, and I think I would have to move to a different universe to get some peace and quiet!)... and yes, I know that if there was another universe to move to with empty spaces in it then absolute nothingness and absolute somethingness would not exist, but I was joking, and there may well not be a thing as another universe.

Why everything could cancel itself out:

E=MC^2 tells us that mass and energy are the same physical entity.

Admittedly, we are all to some extent relying on theories in these discussions, but these theories are pretty well known and widely accepted, and E=MC^2 has been tested and proven to be accurate.

Basically, energy and mass are equivalent because energy can change into mass, and mass can change into energy. But in a closed system, such as the universe, there is a set amount of energy, (The Law of Conservation of Energy = energy cannot be created or destroyed) and hence, a set amount of mass too—or I suppose, to put it more accurately, whatever state the mass/energy is in, there is only a set amount of it.

The reason that there is C^2, or the speed of light squared, also in the equation is because energy travels at the speed of light, and the reason that this is squared—which makes it into an incredibly huge number— is because a tiny amount of mass/matter can be transformed into huge amounts of energy. We see this when we split atoms, as huge amounts of energy are generated out of only a tiny amount of mass. But, as stated before, it doesn’t matter how much mass, energy and speed combo we have, or at what stage the mass or energy is, because if we take the universe as a whole, there is always a set amount of mass/energy. Mass and energy are basically the same thing, just at different states.

We can understand how the amount of mass, or matter, in the universe is very small compared to the amount of energy when we consider that there are vast areas of space which are virtual vacuums, hence, why we call it 'space', whereas in just one star, enormous amounts of energy are converted. Stars are one example of where mass/matter is converted into energy btw (through the process of nuclear fusion.)

If two objects are apart, then there is a store of gravitational potential energy in them, which ‘wants’ to pull them together. (This is what keeps the planets in our solar system) If those two objects are then moved closer together, then the gravitational potential energy decreases negatively as the positive kinetic energy increases. The two are opposites, one positive energy, and one negative energy. Due to balancing of forces and charges—and other equilibriums we see in the structure of the universe— it is believed that the total positive energy must equal the total negative energy. This would mean, if we take the universe in its totality, then the positive energy cancels out the negative energy, leaving overall zero energy….and mass.

because energy travels at the speed of light — Beverley

Are you sure "speed of energy" is definable in theoretical physics?

You know, this thread is similar to the thread on "A First Cause is Logically Necessary". Both attempt to take participants into areas of knowledge that are extreme in the sense of being beyond any sort of verification except questionable applications of logic, an investigative tool arising from what we see and understand of nature. All is speculation in these discussions. To assume logic applies to "absolute nothing" or "first causes" beyond origins, or "infinities" that are not simply axiomatic structures of mathematics is - and only my opinion - mistaken.

Unfortunately, this doesn't leave much available as an exploratory strategy. But these topics constitute a frontier of philosophical thought, no doubt.

Yep. Mere wordplay.

You seem to be saying that mathematics is a greater source of truth than philosophy's pursuit of the ineffable. The later can't be put into words but it can be pointed at and knowledge of this wordless truth can grow

So if nothing, either thought or matter, ever existed, how can we cognize that state of affairs? Absolute nothing is that. We do have thoughts and bodies now and there are now necessarily only limited nothings. Only the whole has it all. There is limited nothingness especially in consciousness. Why this interest in absolute nothing unless it is connected to the human concern over death? What relevance does it have for students of philosophy?

↪jgill

You seem to be saying that mathematics is a greater source of truth than philosophy's pursuit of the ineffable. The later can't be put into words but it can be pointed at and knowledge of this wordless truth can grow — Gregory

I can't argue with that. :smile:

For something to exist/be true, it must be a thing. If absolute nothingness is a thing — Ø implies everything

It isn't. Nothing is not a thing that exists. When I eat my only apple, I don't then have a number of apples remaining, and that number is 0. The absence of apples is not a thing that exists.

It isn't. Nothing is not a thing that exists. When I eat my only apple, I don't then have a number of apples remaining, and that number is 0. The absence of apples is not a thing that exists. — Patterner

You are exactly right

You seem to be saying that mathematics is a greater source of truth than philosophy's pursuit of the ineffable. The later can't be put into words but it can be pointed at and knowledge of this wordless truth can grow — Gregory

You seem to be making philosophy so powerless, as if we cannot talk about certain things. To me, that is the whole point of philosophy. To me, it is the pursuit of truth and knowledge however we come about it. Mathematics and sciences—and other subjects too—are also in the pursuit of truth and knowledge, only they are in their specific fields; philosophy isnt limited to a specific field. I can't imagine 'philosophy ' saying, "hold on, you got, or are attempting to get, to that truth through maths or science, therefore that truth is of less value." Besides, I don't see them as being separate things. But that is just my view. I have no doubt some other people would disagree.

So if nothing, either thought or matter, ever existed, how can we cognize that state of affairs? — Gregory

Because we cognize it now because now we exist. But we did not, or could not, cognize it then obviously.

Why this interest in absolute nothing unless it is connected to the human concern over death? What relevance does it have for students of philosophy? — Gregory

I'm not sure how one could say why someone has an interest in something. Or why we should need to. In my opinion, it is a valid topic and brings up debate and discussion, which to my mind is an important part of philosophy. Who knows if discussion about nothingness might give us the answers to everything. (Although I doubt it because I don't believe there is an answer to everything, but I don't know for sure.) I don't see philosophy as limited to only certain subjects and discussions.

I objected to jgill's apparent claim that mathematics is superior to philosophy. Both give truth but different kinds of truths. They are two peas in a pod. Science on the other hand was refuted by Hume and Plato long before this forum started. It has lots of practical truths but it's still in the Cave as far as philosophy is concerned. So I agree with you that philosophy has something to say about pretty much everything

cience on the other hand was refuted by Hume and Plato long before this forum started. — Gregory

Oh, really? Where?

I objected to jgill's apparent claim that mathematics is superior to philosophy. — Gregory

Sorry, I think I got confused about who was referring to who. My mistake.

It has lots of practical truths but it's still in the Cave as far as philosophy is concerned — Gregory

I'm not sure I see science as being in the cave for philosophy at all. I suppose it depends on how someone views and uses the information/theories etc from science. If you just accepted it all without question, then that could be problematic. However, I don't think truth in science nowadays is often thought of as being final. It is constantly being questioned, which I think is a good thing. In the past, on the other hand, people were severely punished for questioning too much, such as Socrates, or in scientific fields, Galileo springs to mind. If people were not free to search for truth, and science was dictated to by the people in power then, yes, in that sense, science could be seen to be in the cave. I would like to think that these days there is less 'cave dwelling' than in the past, but I guess realistically, there still are a fair few dastardly caves... if they are plural, or is there just one, big, overcrowded cave?

Hume on causation obviously, and in Plato's system the world is the realm of opinion, while the Ideas alone have true actuality. Some turn modern science into a religion by calling Dark Matter "God" or speculating of something coming from nothing, which is fine but science can't avoid philosophy while at the same time its methods don't lead to the Ideas

To be upfront, I am a Hegelian perennialist non-dualist, so clearly I may see these matters differently than many in Western modern society. The German idealists contrasted "understanding" from speculative thinking. Practical truth is clearly differentiated from philosophical truth. The latter is without time.

You seem to be referring to the problem of induction. By that account, I guess we should say science refutes Hume, as science keeps working despite any skepticism towards regularity, and that radical empiricism is not a common view any longer.
And {the claim that Plato refuted science, which is a method and not a philosophy, centuries before the scientific method was even put in philosophical terms} is a weird one, to say the least.

Well if Plato is right then science is opinion. His system stands as a certain way of looking at reality and should be addressed. Too few people are even interested in philosophy, not knowing what it's really about. Hume showed that science can't make definite statements the way mathematics can, and as philosophy can after much mulling. Science works sometimes but it fails all the time as well. It can't say what reality is and it's results are open to investigation.

Let me state that no one here is denying that he has parents and drives a car, ect. That is practical truth. Philosophy addresses something more subtle. Scientists must think philosophers are crazy for speaking of the "real Reality" but we think they are crazy for talking about a theory of everything. Such a theory can't address philosophy even though much of its thinking gets mired in philosophy. If it's not the true reality, how can you have a full theory of it? Hume already shows with the induction problem that the world is radically contingent and we can't truly know what is causing what. Science is fine but it doesn't go anywhere