Does "nothing" exist?

@The Dude phil,

Nothing does not exist but we have a concept of " The Nothing" insofar as we can always conceive through the principle of non-contradiction the possible absence of a particular being. But the particular nothing or the negation of something is the same as nothing itself for it is the absence of being in general.

@The Dude phil,

It can be answered expeditiously that ''nothing'' is a byword for nothing whatsoever.But if it must be constitute to an arcane time when genuinely nothing ever existed,no one can comprehend this abtruse,obfuscated query.

Someone should have created God,which is ''nothing'' preliminarily.Because in days of yore,in the gargantuan space,something must have created the space,and something should have the space as an abode,and so on ad infinitum.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Hi Zetherin

I'm afraid I find that an unsatisfactory response. The extent to which the drawer does not really contain 'nothing' is exactly the extent to which it is not really 'empty'. I can quite as easily say the drawer contains nothing as is empty and be understood as saying the same thing.

Don't ever be afraid, I don't bite. I growl, yes, but I won't bite.

Yes, to the general populous, I'd say you're correct: If you mutter, "There's nothing in the drawer!" or "The drawer is empty!" it would mean exactly the same thing. However, we are trying to really contemplate "Nothingness" within this thread, not stopping our contemplation at general usage. If you're unclear about what I mean by contemplating "Nothingness", simply look at all the analytically-rich posts above me that attack this abstract notion without remorse! We're here to dig, dig, dig!

I hope you understand, we analytical philosophers never mean to hurt anyone during our duties -- but it can happen indirectly Very Happy

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Don't ever be afraid, I don't bite. I growl, yes, but I won't bite.

How do you eat?!?

Zetherin wrote:

However, we are trying to really contemplate "Nothingness" within this thread, not stopping our contemplation at general usage.

Zis I know, and what I'm saying is that, even in this context (in all contexts except them funny spiritual ones), "emptiness" is the state of containing "nothing", be it the emptiness of drawers, abstract sets, space... Not the 'nothingness' of Sartre perhaps, but that's not the 'nothing' of the OP, so no problem there.

Zetherin wrote:

I hope you understand, we analytical philosophers never mean to hurt anyone during our duties -- but it can happen indirectly

Yes, it's a high risk profession. That's why they pay you so well. Or... Or was that a threat?!? :shocked: It's all good, man. I didn't mean to sound hurt of offended or anything. Not sure how that coulda come across, though its tricky... people do get prickly here. No, I just posted that absent-mindedly whilst busily sucking the air out of your drawers.

@The Dude phil,

The Dude wrote:

I've been debating this subject for some time with a lot of people and I've always taken the view that "nothing" does not exist. No matter where you are in the universe their is something.

One example that always gets asked is about space. If you take a small parcel of space in any given place in the universe their still is "something" because the way I see it their are gamma rays, light rays, etc. Even if "nothing" did exist you would have to witness it through something, which means that it is not nothing since the nothing would be in the presense of something.

Does this make sense? Any ideas? Is it a valid argument?

I guess I'd have to agree with you. If nothing is the absense of everything, then nothing cannot exist while everything is present. If everything ceases to exist, then nothing will exist. I guess one discounts the other.

@Elmud,

Elmud wrote:

I guess I'd have to agree with you. If nothing is the absense of everything, then nothing cannot exist while everything is present. If everything ceases to exist, then nothing will exist. I guess one discounts the other.

Nothing is same as non-being. Everything exists by virtue that everything is being, while nothing is the absence of existence because its a non-being.

@Patty phil,

Patty wrote:

Nothing is same as non-being. Everything exists by virtue that everything is being, while nothing is the absence of existence because its a non-being.

I spelled absence wrong Patty.:perplexed:

@Patty phil,

Patty wrote:

Nothing is same as non-being. Everything exists by virtue that everything is being, while nothing is the absence of existence because its a non-being.

In which case non-being will exist when nothing exists. So something will exist. Either nothing exists or something exists. So, if something does not exist, then nothing will exist. Therefore, something will exist, namely, nothing.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

In which case non-being will exist when nothing exists. So something will exist. Either nothing exists or something exists. So, if something does not exist, then nothing will exist. Therefore, something will exist, namely, nothing.

No. Non being will exist when nothing exists? False, nothing is the non existence. You have poor analysis of what i said.

@Elmud,

Elmud wrote:

I guess I'd have to agree with you. If nothing is the absense of everything, then nothing cannot exist while everything is present. If everything ceases to exist, then nothing will exist. I guess one discounts the other.

Nothing is not the absence of everything. My juice cup does not contain everything, nor does it contain nothing. Nothing is the absence of anything. Thus the presence of nothing does not invalidate the presence of everything; the two are mutually exclusive but can still be co-existent.

The whole question here boils down to this:

[CENTER]Does an existent have to be some thing?

[/CENTER]

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

In which case non-being will exist when nothing exists. So something will exist. Either nothing exists or something exists. So, if something does not exist, then nothing will exist. Therefore, something will exist, namely, nothing.

Something will exist if there is a perception of it. But perception is something too. Which is a part of everything.

A real brain teaser this one. Kind of like a song you cannot get out of your head.I think its time for me to go fishing.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Nothing is not the absence of everything. My juice cup does not contain everything, nor does it contain nothing. Nothing is the absence of anything. Thus the presence of nothing does not invalidate the presence of everything; the two are mutually exclusive but can still be co-existent.

The whole question here boils down to this:

[CENTER]Does an existent have to be some thing?

[/CENTER]

Naturally. Otherwise, it would not be anything.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Naturally. Otherwise, it would not be anything.

I'm basically with you, but you're explanation is just a rewording of the question. An existent that is not some thing is not anything by definition. That does not explain why only things can exist.

@Elmud,

Elmud wrote:

Something will exist if there is a perception of it. But perception is something too. Which is a part of everything.

A real brain teaser this one. Kind of like a song you cannot get out of your head.I think its time for me to go fishing.

If you catch nothing, let us know.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

If you catch nothing, let us know.

It is well to see that "nothing" is not a fish. That is why this discussion is surreal. People have got it into their heads that "nothing" is a name.

@kennethamy,

I only went thru the last few pages but did not found what I was looking for so I still wonder this:

After long 12 pages of posts did this question got a straight answer or at least overbalance onto one side?
And if not, could one say that this question is not possible to resolve with logical thinking?

Thank you. :yinyang:

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

If you catch nothing, let us know.

I did not catch nothing. I caught one. Does this make sense?

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

I'm basically with you, but you're explanation is just a rewording of the question. An existent that is not some thing is not anything by definition. That does not explain why only things can exist.

What else are there?

@Elmud,

Elmud wrote:

I did not catch nothing. I caught one. Does this make sense?

Of course. You caught fish (at least one). The word "nothing" is not the name of anything. So it is not the name of a fish.

@kennethamy,

The interesting thing about "nothing" is that it represents the sub-consciousness. It embodies Something we dont know against something we do. Again its just a word, but the opposition is there. In your head.

Philosophy Forum

Does "nothing" exist?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know