Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The Question of Nothing

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» The Question of Nothing

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

How can we define nothingness? I have to wonder if our definition of existence is based on the fear of nonexistence. If no one can truly define "nothing" then is it not possible that what we believe to be real around us IS nothingness? Furthermore if everything IS in actuality nothing then we are immortal. What does not exist can not fade from existence.

@Caleb,

Nothing is most simply, the absence of anything at all. I do not think we are immortal.

I quite like Hegel's distinction;

Thesis: The Absolute is Pure Being
Antithesis: The Absolute is Nothing
Synthesis: The Absolute is Becoming

@Parapraxis,

We've gone round and round on this one many times.

It's a word that describes 'absence' of something/some things. Nothing more. To try and bring out of a strictly-contextual reference and posit that some 'nothing' exists is a false progression.

Like "More", "Faster" and "Colder", one can't take words used to describe relations or conceptual references and intelligently ask, "Can you hold that in your hand?" Like "infinity" (which is a word we used to describe that element that describes the concept of no-ending), it's answer would have no meaning - no correlation to objective existence.

This... of course.. assuming I've understood the question rightly (which I make no claim to :listening:)

Thanks

@Khethil,

When its been debated so many times you feel you have nothing more to add..but for those who have not its of more interest.I have always asked if you have box with absolutely nothing in it, can the box exist?.

@xris,

About the word being conceptual i do understand. I realize my question was very vague lol. What I think I am trying to say is that there is no absence of things because in the absence of things there are non-existing things. I don't really know. The whole concept of existence seems very paradoxial to me.

@Caleb,

Quote:

What I think I am trying to say is that there is no absence of things because in the absence of things there are non-existing things.

You are over-complicating a word that does not have to be. A "thing" is defined as either a material object, or an unspecified object. The latter definition needn't be materialist, for a thought (not-material, although granted this represents a wider debate) still exists.

Replace the word "thing" with "entity" and it may be clearer.

@Caleb,

Caleb wrote:

About the word being conceptual i do understand. I realize my question was very vague lol. What I think I am trying to say is that there is no absence of things because in the absence of things there are non-existing things. I don't really know. The whole concept of existence seems very paradoxial to me.

What you mean is that everthing exists, because it wouldnt make sense for some things to exist, and some to not? If yes, I agree.

Xris: If we cannot observe something, its existence is irrelevant: There may be an infinity of alternate dimensions, but they have no meaning to us.

@manored,

manored wrote:

What you mean is that everthing exists, because it wouldnt make sense for some things to exist, and some to not? If yes, I agree.

Xris: If we cannot observe something, its existence is irrelevant: There may be an infinity of alternate dimensions, but they have no meaning to us.

It was an observation about nothing, the box....I saw a very interesting theory about parallel universes like bubbles in a void sitting like balloons at a party , in a row...My attention was drawn to the spaces in between these universes ..do they have a defined distance between them???How can they display nothing between something? you cant ..So my question is if you have a box of nothing can the box exist? Buy a box, take absolutely everything out ..we only describe anything by its contents not its container, the contents describe... the box only confines its size...Sorry im rambling but when is a box not a box..

@Caleb,

You see a chair, and you say "the chair is there". You turn around, and now, "the chair is no longer there."

If you apply this reasoning to the universe, then the concept of absolute nothing is exactly the same as with the chair. Only applied to the universe.

The funny thing, however, is that this resoning is false. The boundaries you associate with "chair" are completely subjective. Another person might have two words that describe the bottom and top of a chair, respectively. To that person, there is two objects. This works for just about anything. What's more, the chair never is "not there". Everything that is; is. It doesn't fade from existence. it just changes constantly. Things that don't exist doesn't refer to some nether-reality holding a bunch of things that are not in reality. It refers to things that we don't percieve.

Even then, that's based on faulty reasoning. The statement assumes that there is a thing that we don't percieve. Truth is, there is just perception, and there is the wanting of a perception. But nothing, really, by virtue of it's definition, really doesn't exist.

@Caleb,

If the "nothingness" is related to a mental illness, it shouldn't be defined as of such, since other illnessess isn't defined but briefly and only the cure are throughoutly defined.

@xris,

xris wrote:

It was an observation about nothing, the box....I saw a very interesting theory about parallel universes like bubbles in a void sitting like balloons at a party , in a row...My attention was drawn to the spaces in between these universes ..do they have a defined distance between them???How can they display nothing between something? you cant ..So my question is if you have a box of nothing can the box exist? Buy a box, take absolutely everything out ..we only describe anything by its contents not its container, the contents describe... the box only confines its size...Sorry im rambling but when is a box not a box..

Ops, sorry, I imagined the wrong kind of nothing into the box Smile

No, I dont think a box can exist winhout anything on it.

As for the teory, I think they put it like that just to make it easier to imagine, there would be no reason for the dimensions to be bubbles into a void if there was nothing on this void. Or rather, it would be impossible because space is something too.

@manored,

manored wrote:

Ops, sorry, I imagined the wrong kind of nothing into the box No, I dont think a box can exist winhout anything on it.

As for the teory, I think they put it like that just to make it easier to imagine, there would be no reason for the dimensions to be bubbles into a void if there was nothing on this void. Or rather, it would be impossible because space is something too.

But do you see my problem if they claim parallel universes exist but define their barriers with space! BUT there is no space because space exist but nothing does not, then there is only one universe.Six universes cant sit in nothing because nothing does not exist so how do they explain the barriers between them? are they boxes or skins like our balloon so what is the skin made of?This theory for me does not make sense..These theoretical scientists never fully explain their theories, they leave it up to others to ask questions then adjust their theories to suit.

@Caleb,

The world "universe" means everthing that exists, so claiming the existence of multiple universes is mistaking. We dont really seen to have an apropiate word to name those "subdivisions of the universe" though, the usually other used word is dimension but I think the word dimension is better left for the dimensions of space and time.

A looney bubble could be sitting in nothing if it has something inside it, and with this I mean: Nothing would exist but the bubble and its contents, the bubble itself being part of those contents.

With multiple bubbles, I suppose you would need something like a "super bubble" containing the bubble lot, so this ubber bubble would be the universe, and the small one its subdivisions.

@manored,

manored wrote:

The world "universe" means everthing that exists, so claiming the existence of multiple universes is mistaking. We dont really seen to have an apropiate word to name those "subdivisions of the universe" though, the usually other used word is dimension but I think the word dimension is better left for the dimensions of space and time.

A looney bubble could be sitting in nothing if it has something inside it, and with this I mean: Nothing would exist but the bubble and its contents, the bubble itself being part of those contents.

With multiple bubbles, I suppose you would need something like a "super bubble" containing the bubble lot, so this ubber bubble would be the universe, and the small one its subdivisions.

Buts whats inside the big bubble apart from other bubbles,something cant be nothing..Other dimensions is to vague a notion for me..I suppose another universe vibrating at completely different level but why cant we see these other vibrations???:perplexed:

@Parapraxis,

Parapraxis wrote:

Nothing is most simply, the absence of anything at all. I do not think we are immortal.

I quite like Hegel's distinction;

Thesis: The Absolute is Pure Being

Antithesis: The Absolute is Nothing

Synthesis: The Absolute is Becoming

Well, you are treating "The Absolute being Nothing" as though it can not have an affect on the synthesis..... Being that nothing is only a conceptual word it does not mean that the absence of things is an actual truth, so maybe nothing is a natural action of the universe to achieve balance. What if The Absolute is actually undoing itself as well? If the synthesis is that the absolute is simultaneously becoming itself and undoing itself it brings us back to "reality" via constant balance in the universe.
Also, back to the parallel dimension theories. The dimensions could be like two large oscillating wave lengths which move in opposite rhythm with one another. When they come closest to one another it is what we know as the absolute and further out is chaos. In turn the oscillation of these infinite waves would satisfy the thought of infinite dimensions. I guess I am just rambling drunk thoughts.

---------- Post added at 03:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 AM ----------

If there is no difference between these wave lengths though then who is to say that time and space exist between them. This "dimension" could possibly be all the dimensions if all dimensions are identical and therefore it would be the only universe.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Buts whats inside the big bubble apart from other bubbles,something cant be nothing..Other dimensions is to vague a notion for me..I suppose another universe vibrating at completely different level but why cant we see these other vibrations???:perplexed:

empty space. nothing fills empty space like empty space Smile

And empty space isnt nothing, because you can occup empty space with something, but you cant occup nothing with something.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» The Question of Nothing

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The Question of Nothing

Quick Links

My Account

able2know