DOES NOTHING EXIST???

...just as something it is something...

...or maybe you´r right and random is nothing at all.

I didn't say that randomness was nothing at all.

I wonder. Do you think that randomness is a lack of any substance or a lack of its organization and purpose?

Randomness is a way in which events are independent of each other, meaning, the outcome of one event doesn't determine the outcome of another event.

...so randomness it is something after all...how come then you posit the Universe emerge randomly from nothing ?

I was researching about nothing for a long time. Now, i get to the conclusion that if nothing exist, it has to be far more complex than something.

Nature is very simple......... how could such complexity exist? If it exist it should be outside of nature........... it seems quiet logical.....that nothing exist outside this universe

Randomness is an abstract idea, not a concrete object. There was nothing. Then there was something. Randomness was simply how it happened. Not some magic power that preexists existence.

On the basis that nothing is the absence of anything then no, "nothing" does not exit as if it did it would be something at which point as it's anything it would have to have a presence and therefore exist.

However, if you are attempting to then further a case that "nothing" at all exists that is obviously false as the question itself is something and therefore "something" (at the very least the question itself) exists.

I suppose you mean abstract objects don´t exist...what can I say to such an odd perspective ?...its your view.

So you think abstract objects exist at some time and place?

At the very least they exist in the minds of those who conceive of them...and that´s good enough.
Ideal forms must be applied to something (they presuppose something)...if ideal forms can be though of by minds, then minds and ideal forms are intrinsically related...it is not the case that abstract ideal forms are not "real" while minds are...whatever that means.

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

If, as you claim, abstract objects exist only in the mind then what do they have to do with the origin of the universe since there were no minds then?

I said at the very least...And presented minds in the "material" sense...The Universe as a material Reality is what is to be compared...Abstract forms are intrinsically related to what is "real" and not the opposite...now the tricky part is to define "mater". But I refer to it as what is to be "Real", for the purpose, as opposed to the more common idea of what is "solid"...
(meaning that I can´t distinguish the difference between a "program" and a "material reality")

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Consider this: by (my) definition all "objects" are concrete and all ideas are abstractions.

Consider this: by (my) definition all "objects" are concrete and all ideas are abstractions.

???
What is to be "concrete" in an object ?
And Where truly is the "abstraction" in the idea ? (Ideas reside in neurons)

Objects have prereflective reality: i.e., they hurt when you kick them. Their MEANING, however, are symbolic, abstract ideas with the weight of feeling in many cases.
Keep in mind here that I am "experimenting". I may very likely change my mind to some extent as our conversation moves on.

How old are you ? Are you familiar with 3D games?
I am asking you this because if you are, and if you bare in mind on how your Avatar interacts with such a "reality" you will know that pre reflexive reality is all about programming...like not crossing a wall because your Avatar when arriving at X,Y.W, coordinates is programmed to not go any further, thus giving you the impression that you hit a solid obstacle...apply the same principles to Universal laws, the Rules of Nature in a more intricate complex manner and you will get what I mean...
...on my account I truly find it very hard to make such a distinction between abstract and solid "objects"...it all very well could come down to strings of information interacting in a system...