Nothingness

@xris,

xris;77398 wrote:

memory is not a measurement and expectation has no value.Experiencing time is only ever now,it may appear to go fast or slow but it does not distinguish the moment.We can never recapture that moment, it is as allusive as the notion of infinity,do you have more than now?

I was not talking about memory. Memory is not experience of the past. I am talking about what I remember, namely my experience of the past. How I remember, and what I remember, are quite different. And, in the same way, I am not talking about expectation, but what it is that I expect. And although I have had no experience of what I expect, I can infer what I expect from what I now experience.

@andyhudd,

Memory and speculation of the future are reduced to merely concepts.

When contemplating nothingness, one must attempt to comprehend the term until the words and definitions exasperate themselves.
There you will find "nothingness"

Laughing

I never knew meditating was so easy.

@Khethil,

My thinking is like this on the concept of nothing:

The universe consists of things formed from matter ... but what if matter is reduced to some miniscule point wherein the next stage of diminution goes to nothing?

Can this nothing be a universal whole in which the material universe exists?

Is the universe built up from concentrated densities of this universal whole?

If it is, then 'nothing' does not exist except in the practical sense ... and Webster's dictionary defines it.

In reality, nothing does not exist. Concrete matter reduces only to a certain point and whatever it reduces to still amounts to something that has some quality ... maybe Hegel was onto something when he said the universe begins with pure spirit.

Also, scripture states (don't ask me where, but I can find the quote) that: 'all things that we see were made from that which is not seen.'

@andyhudd,

andyhudd;26075 wrote:

On the topic of nothingness, a concept so great, that it seems almost impossible for us to ever really understand, I've come up with a theory/quote, that I thought I'd share.

"To truly understand nothingness, is to understand everything."

What do you think?

Hello,

Nice quote - Try this "If Nothing truly exists, then Nothing truly exists".

Thank you.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-07-2010 at 03:53 PM ----------

andyhudd;77047 wrote:

Wow, I didn't realise I'd triggered such a debate, almost a year ago.

Nothingness and everythingness (that is to say - infinity) are two concepts that certainly appear to be beyond our understanding and in certain contexts, I believe that they are one and the same.

Infinite time ... and no time ... for example.

On one hand, they are antipodal concepts, no time enables a being to just exist, to just "be" ... and infinite time enables constant variation, but with no "end", with no combined result of change. I absolutely fail to grasp infinite time, it is hard to imagine time itself existing, without a beginning or an end. It is hard to imagine a precise moment in (infinite) time, it seems impossible because we cannot measure it up against something else.

As some people have said, we just need to accept that nothingness exists (or rather does not exist), the very concept is a paradox, a circle that we cannot comprehend, but to truly understand this paradox, to understand non-being (as per my initial post) ... would perhaps help us to understand the very opposite - everythingness, being.

We can just about grasp somethingness, but the absolutes cannot be understood, it feels as though it is the very same unattainable concept that makes our existence so very limited and confusing.

Hello,

If Nothing Exists... Nothing exists

Mark...

@andyhudd,

I would like to share one.

Atreyu: What is the Nothing? [The Neverending Story 1984]

@andyhudd,

Even if there was nothing there would be something because nothing exists.
Good thought.

@mark gamson,

Hello all,

Just to finalise this - If nobody adds anything more to this thread, what has been added? Nothing, of course.

Thankyou all

Mark...

@andyhudd,

Nothing exists means, it is not the case that something exists.
Nothing exists, means...~EyEx(x=y).

Nothing exists, is a contradiction.

Proof:

1. a=a -> Ey(a=y)
2. Ax(x=x -> Ey(x=y)).
3. Ax(x=x) -> AxEy(x=y).
4. AxEy(x=y) -> ExEy(x=y)
5. Ax(x=x) -> ExEy(x=y).
Ax(x=x) is an axiom of (FOPL=) therefore,
6. ExEy(x=y), is a theorem.

Nothing exists, ~ExEy(x=y), contradicts the theorem ExEy(x=y).

@mark noble,

mark noble;161243 wrote:

Hello,

Nice quote - Try this "If Nothing truly exists, then Nothing truly exists".

Thank you.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-07-2010 at 03:53 PM ----------

Hello,

If Nothing Exists... Nothing exists

Mark...

How about, if all dogs have teeth, then all dogs have teeth. There are a lot of tautologies.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 10:23 AM ----------

Owen;166880 wrote:

Nothing exists means, it is not the case that something exists.
Nothing exists, means...~EyEx(x=y).

Nothing exists, is a contradiction.

Proof:

1. a=a -> Ey(a=y)
2. Ax(x=x -> Ey(x=y)).
3. Ax(x=x) -> AxEy(x=y).
4. AxEy(x=y) -> ExEy(x=y)
5. Ax(x=x) -> ExEy(x=y).
Ax(x=x) is an axiom of (FOPL=) therefore,
6. ExEy(x=y), is a theorem.

Nothing exists, ~ExEy(x=y), contradicts the theorem ExEy(x=y).

Yes, if nothing exists then something, namely nothing, exists, and therefore, if nothing exists then something exists. Therefore, it is false that nothing exists. (P implies ~P, implies ~P).

@Owen phil,

Owen;166880 wrote:

Nothing exists, means...~EyEx(x=y).

Use plain English please.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 09:27 AM ----------

kennethamy;166882 wrote:

if nothing exists then something exists

Well, that's obviously false. Laughing

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166884 wrote:

Use plain English please.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 09:27 AM ----------

Well, that's obviously false.

What is false? That something exists, or the entire conditional? If the latter, then why is it false? Doesn't the proposition, that that there is something which is nothing (nothing exists) imply that there is something (namely nothing). (I am assuming that "nothing" is the name of something).

@Night Ripper,

Hi All,

"Nothing" doesn't exist, never has and never can!

1) "Something" cannot arise from "Nothing". Therefore - The fact that there is observeably "something", (Pick a thing, any thing)? Proves that "Nothing never existed.
2) It obviously doesn't exist NOW, (or you can't answer this, can you)?

3) It can never exist, because "Something" has existed! The existence of "Nothing" would negate the history of "Something". "Something" is!!! has always been, and always will be!

Anyone who has a valid argument, please prove otherwise. But, if you can...YOU DON'T EXIST! so good luck with that.

Thank you, and journey brilliantly, always.

Mark...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166892 wrote:

What is false? That something exists, or the entire conditional?

This is why it's so hard to take you seriously. Do you even think before you type? Why would I think "something exists" is false? That's like asking me if I'm an idiot. No, I'm not an idiot. So, take a guess. If you guessed "the entire conditional" then you guessed correctly.

kennethamy;166892 wrote:

If the latter, then why is it false?

You're honestly asking me why the conditional "if nothing exists then something exists" is false? Well, that's because contradictions are always false. I thought you knew that.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166884 wrote:

Use plain English please.

The empty set has no members, which means that it contains nothing. The empty set is the set of all x such that x=/=x, that is to say, nothing is all that which is not itself, in short, it's a contradiction.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;26135 wrote:

I think there is no concept of nothingness although there is the logical concept of negation with which the former is confused. And that is why it is so difficult to grasp the concept of nothingness- there isn't one.

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

Absolutely agree !
The very same reason why infinity and Time must both be an illusion...

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166898 wrote:

This is why it's so hard to take you seriously. Do you even think before you type? Why would I think "something exists" is false? That's like asking me if I'm an idiot. No, I'm not an idiot. So, take a guess. If you guessed "the entire conditional" then you guessed correctly.

You're honestly asking me why the conditional "if nothing exists then something exists" is false? Well, that's because contradictions are always false. I thought you knew that.

But that is not a contradiction. If P then ~P, is not a contradiction. It is just a contingent falsity. Lay it out on a truth table. You will have an epiphany.After all, P implies ~P, therefore ~P is the form of a reductio ad absurdum argument, isn't it? But reductios do not show the premises are self-contradictory.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166899 wrote:

The empty set has no members, which means that it contains nothing. The empty set is the set of all x such that x=/=x, that is to say, nothing is all that which is not itself, in short, it's a contradiction.

So you're saying the empty set is a contradiction? Alright, what does that have to do with the phrase "nothing exists".

I think the mistake you are all making is thinking that the phrase "nothing exists" is predicating existence to "nothing".

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166903 wrote:

So you're saying the empty set is a contradiction?

No, the content of the empty set is a contradiction, and the content is nothing.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166901 wrote:

But that is not a contradiction. If P then ~P, is not a contradiction. It is just a contingent falsity. Lay it out on a truth table. You will have an epiphany.

1. if x = true then x = false

So if (1) is not a contradiction then what is it? I must admit I haven't seen something like that before so I'm not sure what to call it but that's the essence of "if nothing exists then something exists".

@Night Ripper,

If X, for instance, is the Set of all sets, therefore defined, what can be conceived as not X in order to conceive of X ?

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 10:06 AM ----------

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know