If we have decided that Nothing is a category error perhaps we could move on to what we mean by Something. Could this also be a category error?

Personally, I don't think it just could be, I think it is! We know so little about what substance truly is, what 'being' truly is - we have no consistent, precise definition, as the word is ambiguous to us to begin with. Each consciousness constructs it's own time internally, creating it's own reality - a culmination of events. We have no objective stance from which to view! There's no third party we can observe transcending our consciousness. It's very apparent that what we perceive through any of our senses, including thought, is 'something' to us, however, it seems pretentious to just throw 'something' in a corner with a little categorical sign and call it a day, no? It's very possible that 'something' is not the 'everything' that we conclude, just as 'nothing' is equally as difficult for our minds to wrap around.

Ive got to disagree.We have plenty of something to comprehend whether it is real or not is not the problem of something..

Yes, we do have plenty of "something" to comprehend, but the fact that each consciousness can perceive one thing in an entirely different manner, begs the question. We call it "something" as we can't define it... "something" has been a proverbial holding cell for that which we don't understand since the conception of the word! What we define as "something", is "something" to us, it is our personal truth, however, we can't then use this word "something" as part of a dichotomy, or even a categorization. Again, we have no objective stance from which to view! "Something" is too broad and ambiguous a term to just throw a categorical hat on and call it a day. "Being" varies wildly in interpretation, and yet we think we can so easily categorize "something" - how does that work?

I thought this was a comparison to nothing not a philosophical something but a recognised something as opposed to a nothing..The universe can be explained as being something, undefined if you wish, but it is something whereas before the universe or beyond it, it could be said that nothing does not exist not even nothing.. Something may be too broad but it is something..

Again, you are warping and twisting the definition as you see fit, and that's the point. What is a recognized something? It's recognized by YOU! The point is we can't just apply an objective definition to an idea that is inherently subjective. And now you're applying a definition to "nothing" again, by saying it's opposite. We already went over this, there is no dichotomy.

We can dance around semantics with "something" and "nothing" all day long, but in the end we don't truly understand either.

It's very possible that 'something' is not the 'everything' that we conclude, just as 'nothing' is equally as difficult for our minds to wrap around.

You can oppose the notion all day but i will insist for me there is a difference...Im not defining the something im stating you can have something and you can have nothing but you cant have a nothing..

You may be heading for mysticism if this is your view, you will be horrified to learn. Here the idea that Nothing and Something are conceptual categories and not fundamental phenomena is orthodox. The second century Buddhist philosopher-sage Nagarjuna goes so far as to logically prove that for a fundamental analysis nothing really exists, not even Nothing. It remains to be seen whether philosophy or physics is capable of falsifying this result.

So we cant conceive of something as it might be nothing..or nothing might be something..Ill sit on a toadstool and humm for an hour..get real folks we are talking about facts here not mystical probabilities..God may make an appearance on telly tonight but that would be something..

I have absolutely no clue where you're going with this. This has nothing to do with "God" or mysticism, and I don't know where that even came up.

I'm saying conceive as you will, but don't then apply YOUR conception to an objective definition; it just doesn't fly!

Why do you insist its my conception that is questioned but not yours? the comments on mystics was a general reply as it appears the improbabilities of something appear to be going into the realms of mysticism rather than facts..

I'm saying it's all of our notions that should be questioned!!! From a conceptualize standpoint I understand using the terms "something" and "nothing", but like "nothing", I think "something" may be an idea we have an equally difficult time truly comprehending.

We brush countless words off daily that are just perceived as "givens", when they may be extremely complex. We just choose to stop contemplation at a certain level.

but i still maintain you degrade the debate by saying the "nothing" is no different to something.

I dont mind you doubting anything but for us to conceive of a nothing is not quit the same as conceiving something

I never stated that "nothing" is no different than "something". What I did say is that I do not believe there is a black and white dichotomy between the two concepts, and also that we don't truly grasp either.



Basically we're talking on two different wavelengths here, and it's neither of our faults; we are bound by a limiting means of communication, language. I am not articulating my thoughts well enough for you to understand, and you are responding with comments that I've never rebutted previously. Let me try to clarify now: I am not saying that conceiving of "nothing" and "something" are the same, nor am I saying it's not easier to conceive of "something" - of course it is. I'm merely stating that I don't think we truly understand either concept, and apply a categorical index to both.

By you saying, "I don't see no apple falling from no tree" you're proving my idea. The mere fact that you've constructed this image of "nothing" in your mind, an opposite of the "something" you personally perceive, is the problem. Again, it makes sense why you do, we all do, but when critically considered we can begin to pave an understanding that states this: "We don't always know what we think we know." It's a bit hard for me to explain, and I'm obviously not quite a linguist. This is the best I can give you.

THE NON-EXISTENT {cannot be spoken of}...THE EXISTENT {can be spoken of}.

whether nothing exists? Obviously not. However, "nothing" is a word, and the word, "nothing" does exist.

"nothing" does not exist. No matter where you are in the universe their is something.