The Existance of .. Nothing

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

GoshisDead
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 01:39 am
@the thinker,
If there were a nothing it would necessarily be undefined, as the way human systems of reference work is that something perceived or imagined has in some sense a definition. Because we have defined nothing, nothing cannot exist. Nothing to be nothing would have to be something that has no possibility of being defined, which kinda screws us knowing about nothing because we couldn't without defining it.

An P.S. to whoever was speaking about meditation. The goal "nothingess" meditations is not so much thinking of nothing, but it is not thinking of anything in specific. Thought is inevitable, however one can train the mind not to give value of any kind to thoughts while meditating
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 09:40 am
@the thinker,
the thinker wrote:
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...

No; less is the opposite of more. If you want to understand nothing as a mathematical fiction to make equasions actually work, then nothing is zero. To understand nothing as a reality, it is space occupied by very little, perhaps nothing we would consider as matter, perhaps neutrinos which could govern the movement and behavior of all matter. Since nothing can never be concieved of without reference to the thing, it is the thing under consideration that defines the no-thing. If a penny is the thing, then the removal of that penny leaves nothing. It is not a nothing in reality, but a nothing in context.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 09:43 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
If there were a nothing it would necessarily be undefined, as the way human systems of reference work is that something perceived or imagined has in some sense a definition. Because we have defined nothing, nothing cannot exist. Nothing to be nothing would have to be something that has no possibility of being defined, which kinda screws us knowing about nothing because we couldn't without defining it.

An P.S. to whoever was speaking about meditation. The goal "nothingess" meditations is not so much thinking of nothing, but it is not thinking of anything in specific. Thought is inevitable, however one can train the mind not to give value of any kind to thoughts while meditating

Infinites cannot be defined, but they can be symbolized, which is what a zero is: a space without content.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 10:19 am
@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. Very Happy


Paradox,Smile

:)For starters existence and nothingness create an oxy moron, Conjoining contradictory terms (as in 'deafening silence') in order to find no place where nothing might belong, it would of necessity contain nothing this no place, thus, there would be nothing to cognitively process, so, it would have no reality. I am going back to my room now!!:p
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 9 Jun, 2008 11:25 am
@Fido,
The concept of infinite is defined
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 9 Jun, 2008 06:41 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
The concept of infinite is defined

Then it must be proved. Where is the proof?
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 9 Jun, 2008 06:43 pm
@Fido,
A definition has no need of proof it is simply reference tool
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 9 Jun, 2008 07:02 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
A definition has no need of proof it is simply reference tool

Bulllllshet. If you do not have your infinite as a finite object, it cannot even be defined, but only theorized. Look at the end (fin) in your words. They are logical even if you are not.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 9 Jun, 2008 07:25 pm
@Fido,
Our Buddy Webster Defines Inifinite: Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-nət\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite Date: 14th century 1: extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience>3: subject to no limitation or external determination4 a: extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers> b: extending to infinity <infinite plane surface> c: characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms <an infinite set> <an infiniteadverbnoun

one does not need to be able to count objects to understand the definition of infinite.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 9 Jun, 2008 08:47 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
A definition has no need of proof it is simply reference tool

Sorry, but a definition needs proof that the definition correlates to the meaning, duh.
I do believe that the universe is infinite but the concept not within one's grasp to comprehend.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 9 Jun, 2008 10:05 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
Our Buddy Webster Defines Inifinite: Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-nət\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite Date: 14th century 1: extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience>3: subject to no limitation or external determination4 a: extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers> b: extending to infinity <infinite plane surface> c: characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms <an infinite set> <an infiniteadverbnoun

one does not need to be able to count objects to understand the definition of infinite.

If you cannot produce one as an object you have a handful of wind. As Kant might say: all we have is finite knowledge. Since we connot know infinites we cannot de fin e them.
 
Kat phil
 
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 01:55 am
@Holiday20310401,
"Nothing" is a seven letter word that describes something or lack of something that most english speaking people recognize and understand. Even if there was such a thing as nothing, it stopped being 'nothing' when the word was given its meaning.


Sorry to be so simplistic but it is an answer to the question (just not a very good answer)
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:27 pm
@Kat phil,
Kat wrote:
"Nothing" is a seven letter word that describes something or lack of something that most english speaking people recognize and understand. Even if there was such a thing as nothing, it stopped being 'nothing' when the word was given its meaning.


Sorry to be so simplistic but it is an answer to the question (just not a very good answer)

Nothing has no being, so it is entirely meaning, but meaning cannot give being. Perhaps the majority of our lives is given to the nothings of morality. Justice is a nothing, and so is peace, and freedom and truth. These moral nothings do not work for humanity because of what they are, but because of the meaning we attach to them. thanks
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 11:37 am
@Fido,
Meaning is being in a certain sense. there is no such physical entity as a One Eyed One Horned FLying Purple People Eater, but it is not nothing.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 02:43 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
Meaning is being in a certain sense.

Not. Meaning without being is as if being, and it is from the store house of meaning which is each individual life that we give to no being its meaning.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 07:46 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
If you cannot produce one as an object you have a handful of wind. As Kant might say: all we have is finite knowledge. Since we connot know infinites we cannot de fin e them.

I meant that one can't just grasp infinite; infinite things, concepts, everything, as if able to conceive every finite thing inside at once.
Sure, you can conceive the word infinite because it is creating simplicity.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 08:05 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
If you cannot produce one as an object you have a handful of wind. As Kant might say: all we have is finite knowledge. Since we connot know infinites we cannot de fin e them.


If you know what there not, then you also know what they are...

For if you make a list of what is defined as finite thought, for all that is left is what would be defined as infinit thought...

Therefore you find the oppisite or an absolute oppisite within a infinity that is within another infinity that is a infinty.

So two absolute oppisite infinity's within a "true infinity"

The true infinity would have the thought's that we cant think, like making a new line formation that dosnt exist in are pre setup existence...So "true infinity" isnt in work as we think now, for if it did we would be in utter chao's, for we would exist in the state we are in now, then we would not exist in the state we are in now, and they both would applie at the same time, hence the fact that it would be in true infinity for them to applie at the same time, and for them not to applie at the same time, but at the same time... (SEE TRUE CHAOS IS TRUE INFINITY)...

So that's why we all live in a fixed infinty... where the two absolute oppisite line's that create all conflicting absolute oppisite line's are taken out.

This way you could say that all thing's are at one with one another, and coinside with all matter and all thought within one collective omnipresent system that is all matter and all thought... (yet for such, to be as is, one must have one to coinside with)

So... in a finite existence there are only oppisite's which coinside with one another within a omnipresent system that can be said to be the function's of all thing's and chararistic's of all thing's (color's line formation's ect) basicly the program to are existence.

Which lead's to the thought of a creation of a finite list, that tell's what we can and cannot do physicaly and mentaly, and doing so would uncover the programming to this system's we call are existence, once that's done you would know what finite is completly, therefore you could define what a "true infinit" existence is, for it would act the oppisite of are own, and would not, and would...so on and so on..(hence your keyboard would be a bomb, then it would turn back into a keyboard, a true conflict of what is what...

Nothingness, is an absolute oppisite of Somthingness

So we cannot picture what they are or relate somthing to them from are existence, for the fact that they are only concept's of thought in are existence.(like a computer which was made from are image..we can only think what we where designed/made to think)--(hence a create of somthing from a nothingness aka a finite existence created from an True infinity existence)

We got nothing and somthing...

And nothing normaly turn's out to be somthing... mainly because oppisite's coinside with one another, and could be said to be at one with one another.

Well I did not say this existence is what it is, and therefore made this existence what this existence is...

That would be another that can lay claim to the creation of this existence... But I can claim to be the first to point these thing's out:rolleyes:

eh...why dose no one know why there dosnt need to be a why?

In Fin It Y there dosnt need to be a why, and that's why:rolleyes:
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 05:20 am
@No0ne,
No0ne wrote:
If you know what there not, then you also know what they are...

For if you make a list of what is defined as finite thought, for all that is left is what would be defined as infinit thought...

Therefore you find the oppisite or an absolute oppisite within a infinity that is within another infinity that is a infinty.

So two absolute oppisite infinity's within a "true infinity"

The true infinity would have the thought's that we cant think, like making a new line formation that dosnt exist in are pre setup existence...So "true infinity" isnt in work as we think now, for if it did we would be in utter chao's, for we would exist in the state we are in now, then we would not exist in the state we are in now, and they both would applie at the same time, hence the fact that it would be in true infinity for them to applie at the same time, and for them not to applie at the same time, but at the same time... (SEE TRUE CHAOS IS TRUE INFINITY)...

So that's why we all live in a fixed infinty... where the two absolute oppisite line's that create all conflicting absolute oppisite line's are taken out.

This way you could say that all thing's are at one with one another, and coinside with all matter and all thought within one collective omnipresent system that is all matter and all thought... (yet for such, to be as is, one must have one to coinside with)

So... in a finite existence there are only oppisite's which coinside with one another within a omnipresent system that can be said to be the function's of all thing's and chararistic's of all thing's (color's line formation's ect) basicly the program to are existence.

Which lead's to the thought of a creation of a finite list, that tell's what we can and cannot do physicaly and mentaly, and doing so would uncover the programming to this system's we call are existence, once that's done you would know what finite is completly, therefore you could define what a "true infinit" existence is, for it would act the oppisite of are own, and would not, and would...so on and so on..(hence your keyboard would be a bomb, then it would turn back into a keyboard, a true conflict of what is what...

Nothingness, is an absolute oppisite of Somthingness

So we cannot picture what they are or relate somthing to them from are existence, for the fact that they are only concept's of thought in are existence.(like a computer which was made from are image..we can only think what we where designed/made to think)--(hence a create of somthing from a nothingness aka a finite existence created from an True infinity existence)

We got nothing and somthing...

And nothing normaly turn's out to be somthing... mainly because oppisite's coinside with one another, and could be said to be at one with one another.

Well I did not say this existence is what it is, and therefore made this existence what this existence is...

That would be another that can lay claim to the creation of this existence... But I can claim to be the first to point these thing's out:rolleyes:

eh...why dose no one know why there dosnt need to be a why?

In Fin It Y there dosnt need to be a why, and that's why:rolleyes:

Enough wind to fill the Michilin Man. You can propose the opposite of a known quality once you know it. When you know a thing you can propose a no-thing. The thing in itself is the thing, and were it not an object, and finite it could not be defined, but an opposite object, if there is such a thing, has its own being, and is not dependent upon another object for definition. North is the opposite of South, and since North and South actually designate a certain place, or destination it has a certain reality to it. East and West do not designate any certain place, but a direction relative to an arbitrarily fixed point. East and West have no being, but only a certain socially accepted meaning.
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 09:22 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Enough wind to fill the Michilin Man. You can propose the opposite of a known quality once you know it. When you know a thing you can propose a no-thing. The thing in itself is the thing, and were it not an object, and finite it could not be defined, but an opposite object, if there is such a thing, has its own being, and is not dependent upon another object for definition. North is the opposite of South, and since North and South actually designate a certain place, or destination it has a certain reality to it. East and West do not designate any certain place, but a direction relative to an arbitrarily fixed point. East and West have no being, but only a certain socially accepted meaning.


Fido,Smile

:)East and west do have meaning and the point of origin of that meaning is just where you are standing. East and west is an orientation to your own experience and like everything else it is biologically deteremined. All meaning, all knowing is biologically based. This may simply be underlining what you have already stated above, but it does give a little extra clearity.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 10:12 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Fido,Smile

:)East and west do have meaning and the point of origin of that meaning is just where you are standing. East and west is an orientation to your own experience and like everything else it is biologically deteremined. All meaning, all knowing is biologically based. This may simply be underlining what you have already stated above, but it does give a little extra clearity.

Yes, East and West have meaning only compared to some fixed object, or person. Since East is the same as West, so that a person oriented to a fixed point can designate both directions to the same point. Imagine any fixed point, and from there one can bisect any other point on the earth by pointing in opposite directions at some mark on compass. For a person on the North pole, every point leads South. Between North and South every zeneth has its nadir. Am I losing you.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 10:26:43