DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@layman,

Quote:

But, ya know, I was at a place once and it was indeed nothing. It was called "New York" (just for you, Arg).

That doesn't speak well for some of the other places you have been

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Mark, I like this question. I think it is the only place to start thinking about why we are here. I have a lot of thought put into this one if you are still around. Even though this post is a bit old, I think that its the best question ever asked.
And my answer is I dont know by the way. But I have some great things I am writing which visit some of the possibilities on this issue.

2 Replies

@mark noble,

Mark, I just realized that everyone and their brother weighed in on your very smart question with absolute madness, you must have just said, wow! not what I meant. Let me know if anyone in the 113 hits you got actually understood.

0 Replies

@cvaontology,

Quote:

Mark, I like this question. I think it is the only place to start thinking about why we are here. I have a lot of thought put into this one if you are still around. Even though this post is a bit old, I think that its the best question ever asked.
And my answer is I dont know by the way. But I have sometthings I am writing which visit some of the possibilities on this issue.

Are you saying you gave a lot of thought about nothing?
just teasing you Very Happy

1 Reply

@argome321,

I haven't gone through this thread, but I'm sure it has already been noted that the ancient greek philosopher, Parmenides, pronounced that "nothing does not exist." Really just a tautology it seems, but he went on to draw a lot of conclusions from it, such as:

1.Only "being" exists.
2. Since all is being, there is no "becoming."
3. Since there is no becoming, nothing ever really changes--any thought or perception to the contrary is mere illusion.

Something like that. I don't know if that's where eva is headed with it, but, who knows?

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I haven't gone through this thread, but I'm sure it has already been noted that the ancient greek philosopher, Parmenides, pronounced that "nothing does not exist." Really just a tautology it seems, but he went on to draw a lot of conclusions from it, such as:

1.Only "being" exists.
2. Since all is being, there is no "becoming."
3. Since there is no becoming, nothing ever really changes--any thought or perception to the contrary is mere illusion.

Something like that. I don't know if that's where eva is headed with it, but, who knows?

I was just having fun. As far as the post I had addressed this issue earlier and had nothing more to add. Very Happy

I believe that when people are thinking of nothing, something I don't know how to do nor understand, that they are clearing their head, something akin to meditation? Confused

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

I was just having fun

Yeah, me too, Arg.

0 Replies

Its amazing how long this thread can endure on a non issue...
Should we thank Stephen Hawking's and Laurence Krauss brilliant delivery on ignorance ?
We live in a memorable time indeed...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Its amazing how long this thread can endure on a non issue...
Should we thank Stephen Hawking's and Laurence Krauss brilliant delivery on ignorance ?
We live in a memorable time indeed...

...And here you are adding to its' lenght Razz

0 Replies

@layman,

I think it was Nietzsche who, following Heraclitus, noted that no "things" exist as static or essence-bearing "BEINGS"; there is only "BECOMING" in the form of continuous change and process. And this is consistent with the Buddha's notion of the ubiquity of impermanence (anicca).
.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

I don't see how you can have any kind of change without being and archetypes...perhaps you could care to elaborate JL.

...the modern version of an "archetype" is X possible geometric configuration in Y space from the plank scale up.

For something to become something must have ceased to be and something else must turn up in its place...

If the Universe is not infinite in size and if Parmenides was aware of the notion of multiverse I guess he would have applied his ideas in there to begin with.

Whatever is "changing" is changing within spacetime but not in relation to the largest possible set of configurations in Y space. That is determined by the space size itself and the number of information it can contain in x number of possible configurations. Which in turn suggests archetypes are a valid idea and change just the natural unfolding of what already is the case.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I think it was Nietzsche who, following Heraclitus, noted that no "things" exist as static or essence-bearing "BEINGS"; there is only "BECOMING" in the form of continuous change and process. And this is consistent with the Buddha's notion of the ubiquity of impermanence (anicca).
.

Great guesses about the REALITY.

And possibly the best guess made so far.

We don't know.

They may be some of the worst guesses ever made also.

Why does anyone think their guess that the guesses of people like Nietzsche, Heraclitus, or the Buddha...

...are any better than guesses simply pulled out of the air?

How about this blind guess: Humans are nowhere near capable of even guessing reasonably about the REALITY?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Great guesses about the REALITY.

And possibly the best guess made so far.

We don't know.

They may be some of the worst guesses ever made also.

Why does anyone think their guess that the guesses of people like Nietzsche, Heraclitus, or the Buddha...

...are any better than guesses simply pulled out of the air?

How about this blind guess: Humans are nowhere near capable of even guessing reasonably about the REALITY?

I'm just asking, Frank. Was this mean to be rhetorical?

1 Reply

@argome321,

No.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

How about this blind guess: Humans are nowhere near capable of even guessing reasonably about the REALITY?

You really want to carry your skepticism to the greatest possible extreme, eh, Frank?

Let me ask you: When you use the word "reality," what are you referring to?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
How about this blind guess: Humans are nowhere near capable of even guessing reasonably about the REALITY?

You really want to carry your skepticism to the greatest possible extreme, eh, Frank?

Let me ask you: When you use the word "reality," what are you referring to?

Since you have come late to the party, Layman...I will offer this yet again...among many, many, many, many other times.

When I am talking about REALITY...I am talking about the ultimate REALITY of what exists...what IS. I am speaking of the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I AM NOT talking about what we (including me) casually refer to as reality.

I have no problem saying that the reality is that I am typing this response on the keyboard of my computer in my den; that the name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa; that the capital of France is Paris; that spring will start in New Jersey later this month...or that I am sick of answering this question so often when it is pretty obvious that when I speak of REALITY in a discussion such as this, I am not using it the same way I would use it in casual conversation.

In casual conversation I would not question whether what we refer to as "the universe" is an illusion or not...although in a philosophical discussion, that possibility will often arise.

I do use the word differently in different contexts...the way all of us use some words differently in different contexts.

Here in a philosophy forum discussing a philosophical topic...I think that to be appropriate. In this kind of discussion, Layman...I do indeed want to carry my skepticism to the greatest possible extreme...not just to do so, but because I think it appropriate...even obligatory.

How about you?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

but because I think it appropriate...even obligatory.

How about you?

Appropriate, maybe. Obligatory, naw. Me? I tend to stay away from absolutes. When I say I "know" something, I don't mean that I know it with absolute certainty. If that was required, nobody could really say anything assertive about anything.

Quote:

I AM NOT talking about what we (including me) casually refer to as reality...I am talking about the ultimate REALITY of what exists...what IS.

What is? You mean EVERYTHING that is? You mean the one and only "true" thing that guides the universe (like God, or some all-encompassing principle)?

Descartes pretended to start off by doubting everything. As I recall he even doubted the existence of his own body, on principle. He said everything he was seeing could be an illusion, because he could be dreaming, etc.

He wasn't convincing when he claimed to doubt everything. His mere doubting meant he existed, therefore he knew that, with certainty, he said.

2 Replies

@layman,

You seem to be trying not to understand what I said.

Not sure why.

But I explained myself clearly.

If you think what I am doing is inappropriate or not up to your standards of being reasonable...fine with me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you think what I am doing is inappropriate or not up to your standards of being reasonable...fine with me.

You are of course free to say or think whatever you want, Frank, without me trying to tell you to do otherwise.

I personally just wouldn't take it to the level where EVERYTHING is on an equal footing as far as being candidates for what "ultimate reality" is. You put Fresco's speculations on an equal footing as a reasonably ontology. The way you talk sometimes, the claim that God lives on the moon, and run the whole universe from there would be no more, or less, likely, than any other claim.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
If you think what I am doing is inappropriate or not up to your standards of being reasonable...fine with me.

You are of course free to say or think whatever you want, Frank, without me trying to tell you to do otherwise.

I personally just wouldn't take it to the level where EVERYTHING is on an equal footing as far as being candidates for what "ultimate reality" is. You put Fresco's speculations on an equal footing as a reasonably ontology. The way you talk sometimes, the claim that God lives on the moon, and run the whole universe from there would be no more, or less, likely, than any other claim.

Not sure where you get that from, Layman...but it does not accurately depict what I am saying.

If you were to assert to me, "the claim that God lives on the moon, and run the whole universe from there"...I would simply respond, "Do you know that...or is it just a guess?" (In this particular case I might actually say, "Do you know that...or are you just screwing with our heads?")

If you view that as illogically or unreasonably putting "everything on a equal footing"...that is up to you. If you think it compromises my stance in some way...nothing I can do about that.

I do not think it does.

But we seem to be shooting with a scatter gun here. Can we narrow it a bit by sticking with just one objection (or concern) you have with what I am saying?

I thought we were discussing the fact that I acknowledge I use the word "reality" differently in different contexts (as I do with the word "know.")

Let's discuss that to its conclusion before moving on to other things.

Do you not use the words reality and know differently in different contexts, Layman?

Or do you see that as unreasonable and illogical?

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know