Does "nothing" exist?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

democritus
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 06:58 am
@proV,
proV wrote:
could one say that this question is not possible to resolve with logical thinking?

Thank you. :yinyang:
ProV, I think I have an answer for you - see 59 permalink on page 6.

Thanks
democritus
 
Whoever
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:21 am
@The Dude phil,
Does an existent have to be some thing? If everything is Being, is Being a thing?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:57 pm
@Whoever,
Whoever wrote:
Does an existent have to be some thing? If everything is Being, is Being a thing?


What else would it Be?
 
Patty phil
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 12:13 am
@The Dude phil,
Being is in the highest degree of abstraction. It is more apt to say that every "thing" is a being, rather than being is a thing. All that IS is being, whether it exists only in the mind or also outside the mind. Existence is tantamount to being.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 12:28 am
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
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.

Agreed. And by presenting an opposition , although it cannot be, can present an argument which can make a topic so complex, that one loses sight of the fact that the other is actually agreeing with them.
 
Whoever
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 05:52 am
@Patty phil,
Patty wrote:
Being is in the highest degree of abstraction. It is more apt to say that every "thing" is a being, rather than being is a thing. All that IS is being, whether it exists only in the mind or also outside the mind. Existence is tantamount to being.

Being is an abstraction? I doubt this.
 
Patty phil
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 06:34 pm
@Whoever,
Whoever wrote:
Being is an abstraction? I doubt this.


In the sense of it being that which is most common and most transcendental, But I am not limiting it to just an abstraction for it would only reduced it to a concept, whereas being as being is in everything.
 
Ola
 
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 10:50 am
@Ola,
Ola wrote:
Define space.
What happens when the space is smaller than the smalest particle/piece of energy? Can one do that? Always make a space smaller? If so then there is such a thing as nothing.

And what happens when you ad a time factor? And what timefactor would that be? Can we talk about a theoretical freezing of time even when that does not exist?
Quantum Physics say that "The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles."

Does "nothing" exist in macro cosmos if it exist in the micro cosmos?
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:15 am
@The Dude phil,
Nothing absence of everything correct

Nothing "is" the ansence of everything wrong

You cannot use "is" to try and define nothing :perplexed:

o o o o o .

Assume the universe is everything, Then squeeze the whole lot back into a singularity, this included space time matter dimension energy everything back to an invisible point, that point is "not now nothing it has become everything".

Eliminate the singularity push it out of existence, you cannot say "what" "is" "left" "is" nothing because using those words means it exists but it does not exist

The best way I can think of stating this impossible concept is to say everything that was all of existence is gone :perplexed:

The singularity is not nothing it has now become everything :perplexed:

Think about it longer and you will lose your mind

oo o o o o o . .
 
Elmud
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:44 am
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
Agreed. And by presenting an opposition , although it cannot be,It can present an argument which can make a topic so complex, that one loses sight of the fact that the other is actually agreeing with them.

Sorry, tried to add a word so this made more sense.Left out it.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:45 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Nothing absence of everything correct

Nothing "is" the ansence of everything wrong

You cannot use "is" to try and define nothing :perplexed:

o o o o o .

Assume the universe is everything, Then squeeze the whole lot back into a singularity, this included space time matter dimension energy everything back to an invisible point, that point is "not now nothing it has become everything".

Eliminate the singularity push it out of existence, you cannot say "what" "is" "left" "is" nothing because using those words means it exists but it does not exist

The best way I can think of stating this impossible concept is to say everything that was all of existence is gone :perplexed:

The singularity is not nothing it has now become everything :perplexed:

Think about it longer and you will lose your mind

oo o o o o o . .

Yrah. Considering to alternative could make ya go a little nutso I guess.
 
zefloid13
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 06:04 pm
@Elmud,
Read W.V.O. Quine's "On What There Is." Perhaps that will resolve something, though I doubt it...this is a forum after all.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 01:58 am
@zefloid13,
Somehow existence has always been/ being, a void is something remove everything in existence and the existence of existence "IS NO MORE"
 
Krobmotoriker
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 01:13 pm
@The Dude phil,
cogito ergo sum!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:36 pm
@The Dude phil,
Nothing doesn't exist because existence is something.
 
dharma bum
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 11:19 am
@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?



Yes, I'm very much under the belief that the concept of "nothing" is completely incomprehensible for the human mind. If you take empty space and say that nothing is there, it's a fallacy. Even if you suck all the air out of that space, there is still something there. Space is there. Space is something.

Things don't exist to humans unless they are comparable to something. There is no up without down, no light without dark, etc. In order for there to be nothing, you would have to compare it to something. However, if nothing had a comparable property, it would cease to be nothing.

And p.s., it really tied the room together Dude.
 
Whoever
 
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 08:43 am
@dharma bum,
The way I see it, if Nothing were a possible state for the universe then we wouldn't be here. Sooner or later, as it wanders around its possibility space, the universe would arrive at this location, and that would be the end of it. Having arrived it could never leave, the possibility space would collapse instantly.

It seems more likely that the original phenomenon from which we arise is not Nothing and is immutable. Unless this is the case then 'Nothingness' is a possible state of the universe and we shouldn't be here.

If this phenomenon is inconceivable, as Kant, Hegel, Bradley, Peirce and all the mystics conclude, then for the intellect it must be a conceptual Void, a psychological Abyss, but this would not be the opposite of Something nor the opposite of Nothing. We would arrive at this phenomenon by what Hegel calls the 'sublation' of the contradiction between Something and Nothing, for the original unity would transcend this distinction.

To the question of whether the universe originates in Something or Nothing the answer would be no, and this would be why the question is undecidable and drives us nuts in philosophy.
 
Paggos
 
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 05:00 pm
@xris,
In my opinion nothing cannot exist hence the world nothing. Though, things have came from nothing in scientific theories, but those are not valid in my opinion. Things are infinite, only matter is finite, so therefore, is the universe really infinite? Things are always growing such as dimensions are so-fourth, but we don't really know that, it's just an hypothesis.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 09:34:47