The Existance of .. Nothing

@Paradox1,

I've met some people who i could swear had nothing in their heads, but i really doubt there is a such a thing as nothing, unless there is anti-matter.

@Paradox1,

The closest I can get is if all our senses were blocked/disabled, surely we could then claim, we sense nothing.

@Paradox1,

Paradox1 wrote:

Guys, this is one thing I've been thinking of for quite a while. Is there such thing as "Nothing"?

By nothing I don't mean "My coffee! It's gone! There's nothing left!", I mean .. Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING, including the "building blocks" of life?

Give your ideas people.

And what, pray tell, would this nothing be to you? The begin all and end all?

For ex falso sequitur quodlibet.

Wink

@Paradox1,

Descartes based his philosophies on nothing, or the existence of nothing...sorta.

Nothing is a vacuum.
The existence of nothingness would typically suggest that there is something there to represent nothing. A zero is the representative number of nothing. The number ten is represented by the numbers 1 and 0, denoting a 10. The 1 is the space that denotes that you have ten of something, and the 0 is there as a placeholder, because 11-1 would be stupid to use, and we're a step ahead of Roman numerals which uses an X.

204 tells us that we have two hundreds, 4 somethings and nothing representing ten.
199+1 would be dumb.
Yet the Romans wrote it as CC...so who's stupid now?

As a number, nothing is easy to explain the lack of.
In a metaphysical sense, it's a little different...we can have "some" coffee, or a "little" coffee, but to say that you have "no" coffee in your cup, you way as well say you have "no" hay bales in your coffee cup, because it makes just as much sense in the long run.

"Hey mom, I have no snowmen in my pockets, can I have some loose change to fill them with?"

It makes sense to say I have "no" coffee in my cup, because I am suggesting that I would like "some" coffee in my cup, and not milk.
When I say "I have nothing in my cup," then you would ask, "what would you like in your cup?" wouldn't you?
But to tell someone that you have nothing in your cup, then you are simply telling us that you require or want something to be in the place of nothing, and you are not fussy as to what we fill it with.

You ask however, "Is there such thing as "Nothing"? "
Yes. It is typically the absence of something.
Or it could be a vacuum...or a void, a black hole, or Britney Spears' soul.
Perhaps it is not something that can be described in a physical sense, since it is the lack of a physicality. "nothing" in this sense, is subjective, and not objective.

You also ask, ". Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING, including the "building blocks" of life?"

That seems like a two part question to me.
So here is the first half in my eyes... To: ". Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING..."
if there was a place that is devoid of EVERYTHING...then would it not be devoid of a place as well? If there is literally NOTHING there, then anything that you could describe with a noun would be nonexistent. Persons, places and things are all nouns and therefore would not exist. So to this part of the statement, NOTHING would consist of a non-place or as white is described as the absence of colour, then NOTHING would be described as the absence of persons (easy enough) things (also easy) and places (not so easy). So nothing would consist of none of these things, which would make it the absence of everything, hence making it a location in itself to consist of a devoid space.

Which brings me to the second part of the equation.
"...including the "building blocks" of life?..."

The building blocks of life are things, which are nouns, so that answers that...I bet you thought that was going to be hard, huh?
Sorry to disappoint.

In my opinion, nothing exists between time now and time then, as well as time later.
Nothing is something that you could describe as being an increment of time, but not to simply exist between physical objects such as universes...if you had nothing between the universes, then they would be as two pools of water seeking to fill the empty space, and the nothing would cease to be, therefore it cannot become to begin with.

So in short: Nothing = The space between times.

@Aristoddler,

The way I see it - Nothing and "something", let alone ANYTHING, can correspond at the same time.

I.E - You can't have nothing as well as something, to say nothing exists implies that it cancels out everything (This makes sense in my head)

You can't have nothing without not having anything else.

If something was there to represent nothing, nothing would not be nothing, it would be whatever the placeholder was. Saying you have nothing in your cup is false - You'd most likely have whatever was in the surrounding area - air etc, although it would not be filling the cup, but it would be occupying the space.

But as to your other points - I agree. The thing is, I can't make up my mind as to whether nothing exists, to be honest, and probably won't ever make up my mind, although you HAVE swayed me a little. Very Happy

@Paradox1,

Aren't people that seriously meditate in a way pursueing "nothing" as a concept?
Not as in what they're doing is a pointless quest...
But are they seeking what we all sit here and discuss?

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

I've met some people who i could swear had nothing in their heads, but i really doubt there is a such a thing as nothing, unless there is anti-matter.

Reply to that statement. Why would antimatter be relevant. Matter is not the only thing that has potential or is something. And when matter annihilates with antimatter, there is energy being given off right? And is matter not just a physical state of energy? 'Nothing' has no actuality right?, so living is only perceiving the sense of reality, the fundamental given potential to actuality. So when we leave reality you can't say that the fundamental becomes nonexistent (unless it was always that way), it just has no effect on what is concrete. Therefore, nothingness is simply a matter of perspective, whether or not you wish to view actuality as existing even when there is no perception for input upon it. Kind of like the paradox thing with the tree falling in a forest but nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The difference is that of chaos theory still having an effect upon the living, who can cohere with the effects of the tree falling. The tree is of reality having an effect upon actuality, in limitless vast amounts, and therefore on the living that can perceive those effects. When one dies it is not reality's potential producing an effect upon actuality, but of reality's conversion to actuality, (rotting matter).
'Nothingness' is like an illusion that I think people see as perception still having potential upon it. I believe that it is simply the loss of perception and therefore irrelevant, in fact the opposite of living. Please correct me if I'm wrong:rolleyes:.

@Aristoddler,

So in short: Nothing = The space between times.[/quote]

Are you implying that time is a force that is actually in 'instances' and the flow of it is an illusion, because space between times would be hard in my opinion if it flows.
And it doesn't make sense to fit nothing into a space, regardless if its not concrete.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Descartes based his philosophies on nothing, or the existence of nothing...sorta.

Nothing is a vacuum.

I do not agree that 'nothing' is a vacuum because a vacuum would mean there is still dimension to perceive. To me, dimension does not rely upon relative points in space, fundamental, or concrete, it doesn't really matter. Besides, why would 'nothing' be a vacuum?
I believe that 'nothing' should be something that you could never ask that something, who, what, where, when, why, how. That is nothing, and therefore words can't describe it.
Also, that would imply that the nature of nothing is analog because it does not rely upon the comparisons of anything to contrive a difference, displaying the who, what.. etc. Funny as this sounds, nothing can only be an entirety, just as the cosmos is, being analog. All the finite parts that make up the entireties are digital aspects, so the coffee cup example is useless. No coffee could be compared to having coffee. Therefore, the way of eliminating this is to get rid of the perceivance of that vacuum, or that coffee from existing or having the potential to exist. Thus reality's loss of potential to actuality.

@Paradox1,

Paradox1 wrote:

Guys, this is one thing I've been thinking of for quite a while. Is there such thing as "Nothing"?

By nothing I don't mean "My coffee! It's gone! There's nothing left!", I mean .. Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING, including the "building blocks" of life?

Give your ideas people.

nothing is like space, and space is like time, as both are the context forour own lives and the matter around us. Generally I think it is matter which exists, and not space, or time; but that all together are an infinite we call existence which is beyond our knowledge. In math, zero, which is the equal of space in reality is mearly a place holder without value, and so it has no meaning, or being. My guess is, that considered as a reality, as space, that there is no space without some matter in it, while at the same time, even the most dense matter has much of space in it. What if it were possible to put all the matter in the galaxy into a teacup, as it might be, were we able to put all the space in all the atoms outside of them, and all the physical matter into one place? The space within an atom is in some ratio to the energy of the atom, and without the ability to exhaust all that energy we could not reduce matter to matter alone. Does that make any sense?

Sorry to post here. There is nothing young about me but there is everything fat.

@Paradox1,

Paradox1 wrote:

Guys, this is one thing I've been thinking of for quite a while. Is there such thing as "Nothing"?

By nothing I don't mean "My coffee! It's gone! There's nothing left!", I mean .. Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING, including the "building blocks" of life?
Give your ideas people.

Paradox,

Is not nothing empty space, space not occupied by any form of matter? Is even empty space nothing, it has been stated by physicist that space is a fabric and capable of being distorted by the presence of matter, indeed is that not the explanation for gravity. Can nothing be measured like negative numbers, so that nothing will forever be in debt to what matters-----LoL!:p:rolleyes: Nothing is free, for the time being:p

@Paradox1,

Paradox1 wrote:

Guys, this is one thing I've been thinking of for quite a while. Is there such thing as "Nothing"?

By nothing I don't mean "My coffee! It's gone! There's nothing left!", I mean .. Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING, including the "building blocks" of life?

Give your ideas people.

Nothing is still somthing and that somthing is the nothing that it is, therefore the nothing would be a something, which would be a created void due to the lack of "building blocks" or the absence of thought of it.

An example is
Im walking in the sand, I turn and look at my foot prints I left in the sand, and I think to my self that my feet are no longer there, there is nothing there but air. ( mainly nothing is used to express that there is no longer a fuction or object in a location, ect)

Now, in one way there is no such thing as true nothing, even the created vaccum in space can be expressed as nothing, yet it's still somthing and that somthing is the thought and function of a vaccum, hence the thought of nothing, would make that nothing somthing, which would be a thought, or it could be a function, like a vaccum which is made up of nothing(that has somthing in it bu a vaccum is a function therefore it is somthing and that somthing is the chararistics that of it's vaccum, therefore it's not nothing, yet it's somthing)

Nothing is used as a figure of speach within english, kinda like a slang term.

Yet truely the concept of "Nothing" allway's tend's to turn out as still being somthing, it might be a thought or it might be a funtion or chararistic that it has, therefore making that nothing a somthing in one or more difrent or none difrent way's.

Yet there could be still a place with is devoid of all "building block's" "function" "chararistics" "infinitly devoid of all thing's physicaly and mentaly" then that would be a true nothing, yet you would not be able to think of it, for if you could, then it would be come a thought and therefore it would be somthing and not truly nothing, it's one of the few thing's that we could never see or create in are mind's or physicaly in this existence. Another one would be the concept of the fixed amount of color's that can be created or seen in this existence mentaly or physicaly since the shade's white and black mixed in the allmost infinit combo's with all other color's would still have a limited amount of combo's and color's, therefore you could never create a new color that has not been made in are existance. It''s another thing that we can not (or not allowed) to think of mental, or create physicaly,

( I would call my new color none, and it wouldnt look like none of the other color's in this existance ^.^ what would you call your's and what would it even look like? o wait we cant picture what it look's like because it dosnt exist in this existence)

Sorry for the wondering thought's...

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Descartes based his philosophies on nothing, or the existence of nothing...sorta.

Nothing is a vacuum.
The existence of nothingness would typically suggest that there is something there to represent nothing. A zero is the representative number of nothing. The number ten is represented by the numbers 1 and 0, denoting a 10. The 1 is the space that denotes that you have ten of something, and the 0 is there as a placeholder, because 11-1 would be stupid to use, and we're a step ahead of Roman numerals which uses an X.

204 tells us that we have two hundreds, 4 somethings and nothing representing ten.
199+1 would be dumb.
Yet the Romans wrote it as CC...so who's stupid now?

As a number, nothing is easy to explain the lack of.
In a metaphysical sense, it's a little different...we can have "some" coffee, or a "little" coffee, but to say that you have "no" coffee in your cup, you way as well say you have "no" hay bales in your coffee cup, because it makes just as much sense in the long run.

"Hey mom, I have no snowmen in my pockets, can I have some loose change to fill them with?"

It makes sense to say I have "no" coffee in my cup, because I am suggesting that I would like "some" coffee in my cup, and not milk.
When I say "I have nothing in my cup," then you would ask, "what would you like in your cup?" wouldn't you?
But to tell someone that you have nothing in your cup, then you are simply telling us that you require or want something to be in the place of nothing, and you are not fussy as to what we fill it with.

You ask however, "Is there such thing as "Nothing"? "
Yes. It is typically the absence of something.
Or it could be a vacuum...or a void, a black hole, or Britney Spears' soul.
Perhaps it is not something that can be described in a physical sense, since it is the lack of a physicality. "nothing" in this sense, is subjective, and not objective.

You also ask, ". Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING, including the "building blocks" of life?"

That seems like a two part question to me.
So here is the first half in my eyes... To: ". Is there, somewhere, a place or location or whatever that is completely devoid of EVERYTHING..."
if there was a place that is devoid of EVERYTHING...then would it not be devoid of a place as well? If there is literally NOTHING there, then anything that you could describe with a noun would be nonexistent. Persons, places and things are all nouns and therefore would not exist. So to this part of the statement, NOTHING would consist of a non-place or as white is described as the absence of colour, then NOTHING would be described as the absence of persons (easy enough) things (also easy) and places (not so easy). So nothing would consist of none of these things, which would make it the absence of everything, hence making it a location in itself to consist of a devoid space.

Which brings me to the second part of the equation.
"...including the "building blocks" of life?..."

The building blocks of life are things, which are nouns, so that answers that...I bet you thought that was going to be hard, huh?
Sorry to disappoint.

In my opinion, nothing exists between time now and time then, as well as time later.
Nothing is something that you could describe as being an increment of time, but not to simply exist between physical objects such as universes...if you had nothing between the universes, then they would be as two pools of water seeking to fill the empty space, and the nothing would cease to be, therefore it cannot become to begin with.

So in short: Nothing = The space between times.

Um well, yet that nothing is still somthing and that would be The space's between time's, therefore even without that nothing not having a physical state, it has a set function within are existence(applie's physicaly and/or mentaly), therefore you made it somthing. A true nothing, we would not be able to think of in anyway shape or form at any given point of perceptable time, for if we did it would become somthing and that somthing would be the thought of nothing...

Nothing, is nothing, therefore it is not somthing, and that is true nothing, for if I related somthing to nothing, that of which I say is nothing would become the somthing that I related it to, therefore Nothing must be nothing to be truely nothing that is not somthing.

(example)
space is nothing
(I just related space which is a concept of somthing, to nothing, therefore space is not nothing, for it is somthing and that somthing is the function or chararistics that space dose within are existence (even tho it is devoided of matter, yet it has matter within it)

So in short ^.^ the only nothing, is nothing, hence it's truely nothing, which is not somthing.

And that's the concept of nothing that is nothing, which is not somthing

@Holiday20310401,

Could nothing be something of a fifth dimension to us?
The space between spaces?

@SantaMonica1369,

SantaMonica1369 wrote:

Could nothing be something of a fifth dimension to us?
The space between spaces?

Yes nothing is allway's somthing if it is related to somthing that is a thought of a function, chararistic, or physical matter.

Nothing could only be truely nothing, if you related nothing to nothing, therefore making it nothing and not somthing

But what do you mean by a fifth dimension?
And what do you mean by the space's between the space's?

Do you mean a difrent dimension of perception of somthing that is nothing that other's dont share the same perception of?

Or are you applien that "nothing" could be preceived in a fifth dimension within our existence?
_______________________________
well true nothing cant be thought of or pictured in our mind's, for we would allways have to relate nothing to somthing(a thought, word, function, chararistic, physical matter, ect) even if you related nothing to nothing, it would still be somthing, yet that somthing would be nothing.

It's the closest a thought of the concept of true nothingness can go within this existence... the reason why is the same reason why we cant share or picture a new color the was never made in are existence, for we would have truely nothing to relate it to and object that hold's the color that it is. Ive made a list of thing's that it is impossable to image within are mind's or relate to other object's within our existence...it's kinda short

@SantaMonica1369,

SantaMonica1369 wrote:

Could nothing be something of a fifth dimension to us?
The space between spaces?

As a concept, no. Space is a name for nothing. Here is an example: Ether. Ether was used to explain force at a distance, so it suggests that space actually contains something. But whether you accept ether, or do not, there is apparantly no difference in any equasion. And while science went to great lengths to prove the existence of ether it could not. Yet, I in my ignorance tend to accept the notion only because matter is full of space, and when matter gains mass, and loses energy it also loses space, as with steam turning to water, but on an atomic level. So; who out there is looking for a form of matter that is neutral, has no mass, and no momentum? It might be like a neutrino without the energy, but would be capable of conducting virtually any form of energy. It would be my inclination to look for them in a light bulb, because the more matter is excluded the more of ether should be present. Who will find the Zerino? Oh, And it might be the same anima as a graviton. What do you think?

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

As a concept, no. Space is a name for nothing. Here is an example: Ether. Ether was used to explain force at a distance, so it suggests that space actually contains something. But whether you accept ether, or do not, there is apparantly no difference in any equasion. And while science went to great lengths to prove the existence of ether it could not. Yet, I in my ignorance tend to accept the notion only because matter is full of space, and when matter gains mass, and loses energy it also loses space, as with steam turning to water, but on an atomic level. So; who out there is looking for a form of matter that is neutral, has no mass, and no momentum? It might be like a neutrino without the energy, but would be capable of conducting virtually any form of energy. It would be my inclination to look for them in a light bulb, because the more matter is excluded the more of ether should be present. Who will find the Zerino? Oh, And it might be the same anima as a graviton. What do you think?

Outer Space, contain's a vaccum within it(Outer Space Is Not A Vaccum It Contain's One Within It's Space Which Make's It Diffrent From The Space That We Live In Therefore It Is Called "Outer" Space), yet the the word "space" is not normaly related to nothing...For space has a function which effect's how matter and other function's operate within the function called "space" therefore it is truely somthing, no matter which "space" it is it will allway's have a function that coinside's with another function within that "space" or around that "space"

Since the space we live in is just another "space" within "Outer Space", you could say that a Zerino would exist in a space bettween space's and effect's the function's of how matter operate's within the two space's it is bettween, people know the function of a Zerino must exist for our physical existence to operate how it dose.

Here is a great example of a function and effect "space" has on the thing's around it.

When we all type, we put space's between are word's, why do we put them there? ^.^ to divide one thing from another thing's so we can see what is what(or in the case of outer space, space can have a infinite amount of space's within space's with space's in bettween space's)(but that dosnt make space nothing, just make's space have a function like everything els dose..)... So that is one of few function's "space" has, therefore it is not nothing, it's just empty, just like your coffee cup(As used in the start of this thread)^.^

So it's safer to say, space is another name for empty.

But when it come's to proving a unseeable function that effect's how are existence operate's, it will allway's come to apoint where one must say it must exist for everything els to exist and function as it dose now

Puting peice's togeather to make a picture...wonderfull puzzle of life(hardest one ever made...(yet))

When you ask what do I think tho...I think Absolute Zero is the key to finding somthing that act's like nothing... Because at the temputure's that have got now, show sign's of conflict with gravity, and if the Ab0 mark is passed, it seem's like the partical would allway's pass out of containment because it would no longer be effected by anything(or somthing) therefore are solar system would keep moving, and it wouldnt, because it would not be effected by somthing, for it would act like nothingness...

o...Space is created by matter, because space is a function which dose the operation of seperation of matter, within are existence, yet I find it more interesting in finding out what contain's and what has made the vaccum that exist's in Outer Space...Hence the location of the "seal"

All space's have space's within those space's, this applie's to all form's of matter, why would this not applie to outer space? that question lead to the theory of a finite amount (or an infinite) of universe's within universe's Yet this theory has a major flaw...:eek: what seal's the vaccum within space? And what first create's that vaccum within space? so far a black hole would make a great function as being a seal( a oneway passge to the nexted space within that last space, so on and so on, finitely or infinitly..)

But like before as, it will allway's come to a point where it cant be proven with mathmatical formual's and invention's, just need to see if the peice fit's in the puzzle ^.^.. so that's the end of what I think of that madder...(I cut it very short, your question's and statment's brought up alot of thought's...)

So... what do you think?

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

Um well, yet that nothing is still somthing and that would be The space's between time's, therefore even without that nothing not having a physical state, it has a set function within are existence(applie's physicaly and/or mentaly), therefore you made it somthing. A true nothing, we would not be able to think of in anyway shape or form at any given point of perceptable time, for if we did it would become somthing and that somthing would be the thought of nothing...

Nothing, is nothing, therefore it is not somthing, and that is true nothing, for if I related somthing to nothing, that of which I say is nothing would become the somthing that I related it to, therefore Nothing must be nothing to be truely nothing that is not somthing.

(example)
space is nothing
(I just related space which is a concept of somthing, to nothing, therefore space is not nothing, for it is somthing and that somthing is the function or chararistics that space dose within are existence (even tho it is devoided of matter, yet it has matter within it)

So in short ^.^ the only nothing, is nothing, hence it's truely nothing, which is not somthing.

And that's the concept of nothing that is nothing, which is not somthing

Like the way u worded that. :eek:
But I still can't believe that nothing is still something. Nothing has something to it though. Nonexistence. The opposites construe with any possible way of trying to perceive 'nothing' and I know that perceiving is therefore not the way of going about perceiving 'nothing'. I see this as nothing being incompatible with the digital sense of the universe. So I do advocate that theory somewhat that somebody mentioned, of nothing being the nature of a fifth dimensional essence. I just don't think dimension is the right word. It just adds an analog aspect that fits with 'nothingness'.

@Holiday20310401,

Nothing would be the opposite of everything, wouldn't it? Not that that's any help...definining everything is just as hard as defining nothing...

Philosophy Forum

The Existance of .. Nothing

Quick Links

My Account

able2know