DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Night Ripper,

Sorry, but I cannot contain myself:

According to you, we are allowed to say that "the concept of nothing is not the concept of zero," but not that "nothing is not zero." And if we insist in saying the latter, then we must make "nothing" mean "something." But hey, this is not the "fallacy of reification": it is rather the "concept" of nothing -- which now means no longer nothing, but rather something (let us not ask what that "something" is).

This is just confusing the concept of nothing with the word we use to mean it. So perhaps if I say "dollar" a hundred times I will end up with an additional hundred dollars in my pocket...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Aye Aye...whatever works for you...strip away till nothingness comes out of your mind lad !
(Maybe you get it then...)

Don't worry, that was just a metaphor. Focus on my previous post instead.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

That said, at least you agree that the concepts of "nothing" and "zero" are different, which is not a small victory.

Please don't misrepresent my position. I took the trouble of speaking hypothetically i.e. "if someone says such a thing". I never said I agree with you and frankly I don't need to take a stand on whether or not it's true just to evaluate the consequences if it were true.

guigus wrote:

This is just confusing the concept of nothing with the word we use to mean it.

That's the distinction between de re and de dicto. Look it up. You're the one that is confusing the two. When you say "nothing is not zero" you mean de dicto but then you switch to de re when you try to infer that "everything is zero" from that. It just yet another fallacy of ambiguity, kind of like the reification fallacy.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
That said, at least you agree that the concepts of "nothing" and "zero" are different, which is not a small victory.

Please don't misrepresent my position. I took the trouble of speaking hypothetically i.e. "if someone says such a thing". I never said I agree with you and frankly I don't need to take a stand on whether or not it's true just to evaluate the consequences if it were true.

So logic is just a futile exercise, right?

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
This is just confusing the concept of nothing with the word we use to mean it.

That's the distinction between de re and de dicto. Look it up.

Look it up refers to what you are going to say or to the distinction?

Night Ripper wrote:

You're the one that is confusing the two.

Just show how.

Night Ripper wrote:

When you say "nothing is not zero" you mean de dicto but then you switch to de re when you try to infer that "everything is zero" from that. It just yet another fallacy of ambiguity, kind of like the reification fallacy.

Let me see:

1. Nothing as a word -- which we can consider as being something -- is de dicto (literally translated, "about the said"). So you are saying that I am first taking "nothing" as a word, so it can be something. This is not correct, but let it be.

2. Nothing as the meaning of a word -- which must be not any and every being -- is de re (literally translated, "about the thing"). So you are saying that, by taking nothing as not a damn thing, I am taking it as a thing.

Well done! So now nothing no longer means not a damn thing, but rather a thing! Not to mention that there is no difference between taking nothing as "de dicto" or "de re," since both are something!

Unfortunately, the distinction between "de dicto" and "de re" cannot apply to nothing, just like the "reification" fallacy. And why? Because nothing has the peculiarity of referring to not a damn thing, which is always its meaning, even when you take it as being something, so you are always allowed to take it as meaning not a damn thing.

Even in Latin, words have meaning: what is the thing (re) nothing is about (de)? Answer: not a damn thing, so nothing is not about a thing (not "de re").

1 Reply

@guigus,

Don´t bother...nothing has in fact a very simple practical meaning like just simply denying any potential obvious assessment upon something...beyond that the word is trash...(never was meant to be absolute)

(...You use to things like I was thinking upon nothing in particular and similar stuff...)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Don´t bother...

Or don't think?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

nothing has in fact a very simple practical meaning like just simply denying any potential obvious assessment upon something...beyond that the word is trash...(never was meant to be absolute)

So "nothing is not zero" means that "not a damn thing is not zero," hence that "everything is zero," right?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

(...You use to things like I was thinking upon nothing in particular and similar stuff...)

It seems you didn't get used enough to it.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Unless you come up with a number or anything else that multiplied by zero equals one, nothing multiplied by zero equals one.

Here now... "nothing multiplied by zero" is just a bad way of saying "you can never get 1 by multiplying something with zero".

It doesn't mean that "nothing" is some mysterious #£2%[& that will result in 1 if you multiply it with zero.

You, sir, are playing the fool...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

A man walks into a bar and sits down. The bartender asks him if he would like a shot of whiskey. The man replies "I'd rather have nothing." The bartender looks confused at first, then annoyed and asks, "Why?" The man replies, "Because nothing is better than a shot of whiskey."

Yes, it's a bad joke but it makes for even worse philosophy.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

So "nothing is not zero" means that "not a damn thing is not zero," hence that "everything is zero," right?

What in the hell don´t you get in here ??? you seam like a washing machine round and round...

Your interpretation is silly !
No thing is not zero ! now notice, no thing is not a thing !!! So it can´t be...no IS is in place !!!

Nothing is not zero, but zero !!! All things which are not zero are not zero but zero which is a number ! Nothing does n´t point to everything in turn !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
So "nothing is not zero" means that "not a damn thing is not zero," hence that "everything is zero," right?

What in the hell don´t you get in here ??? you seam like a washing machine round and round...

It is you that seems a washing machine going round and round, since you keep repeating that "nothing is not zero" without ever following its logical consequences.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Your interpretation is silly !

To begin with, it is not an "interpretation": it is a logical reasoning (something you should get used to), and as far as I know, there is nothing silly about reasoning logically -- or is it?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No thing is not zero ! now notice, no thing is not a thing !!! So it can´t be...no IS is in place !!!

Now just ask yourself: what is "no thing"? To which you must answer that it is not any and every thing. So:

Code:No thing is not any and every thing.

Which means either that:

1. Any and every thing is any and every (other) thing.
2. A thing we call "no thing" is not any and every thing.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Nothing is not zero, but zero !!! All things which are not zero are not zero but zero which is a number ! Nothing does n´t point to everything in turn !

But the only way for "nothing doesn't point to everything in turn" not to mean "everything points to everything in turn" is to read "nothing" as meaning something -- again, you are contradicting yourself.

Besides, nothing is not only not everything, since it is also no particular thing: nothing is not any and every being. Which, as I already pointed out, means either that:

1. Any and every being is any and every (other) being.
2. A being we call "nothing" is not any and every being.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Besides, nothing is not only not everything, since it is also no particular thing: nothing is not any and every being. Which, as I already pointed out, means either that:

1. Any and every being is any and every (other) being.
2. A being we call "nothing" is not any and every being.

Just listen to you...you don´t need my help to contradict yourself...

The entire point of the Thread is precisely upon the silliness of using the word out of a relative context !!!

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

oh, and drop the "other"...I am certainly not you...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Guigus and Fil Albuquerque,
Please consider my signature line:
The spirit of civil conversation consists in building on another's observation, not overturning it.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Besides, nothing is not only not everything, since it is also no particular thing: nothing is not any and every being. Which, as I already pointed out, means either that:

1. Any and every being is any and every (other) being.
2. A being we call "nothing" is not any and every being.

Just listen to you...you don´t need my help to contradict yourself...

Of course I am contradicting myself, since from the start I am trying to prove you that the very concept of nothingness is contradictory -- it is both a being and nothing. So, if I am right (which I am), there is no way I could not contradict myself in talking about nothing -- as neither could you, which explains your contradictions so far.

What you have to do to prove me wrong is to show a flaw in my reasoning -- the one you quoted above -- otherwise you are just agreeing with me, despite your beliefs on the contrary.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The entire point of the Thread is precisely upon the silliness of using the word out of a relative context !!!

This thread opens with a question, not with a "point." Aren't you satisfied in blaming the contradictions of nothingness on me? Are you going now to blame your "point" on the thread as well?

Back to my reasoning, which you were incapable of falsifying:

guigus wrote:

Nothing is not only not everything, since it is also no particular thing: nothing is not any and every thing -- or even better, not any and every being. Which, as I already pointed out, means either that:

1. Any and every being is any and every (other) being.
2. A being we call "nothing" is not any and every being.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Guigus and Fil Albuquerque,
Please consider my signature line:
The spirit of civil conversation consists in building on another's observation, not overturning it.

The sad news to you is that advances only occur when building on another's observation is also overturning it, even if only a little bit. Otherwise, no matter how fun, you stay where you already were when you left home.

0 Replies

If a contradiction arises logically, that is, necessarily from a sound reasoning, then we have no right of using it to invalidate that reasoning. Otherwise, mathematicians would have no reason to worry about, say, Russell's Paradox (the set of all sets not containing themselves): since it is a contradiction, it must be just a false reasoning, right? Wrong: it substantially changed the future of set theory and logic.

The same happens with nothing. Since it is not any and every being, and since it can be "interpreted" in only two ways -- either as a being or as nothing -- we are left with only two ways of "interpreting" the assertion:

Code:Nothing is not any and every being.

The first "interpretation" takes nothing as meaning, precisely, "not any and every being":

Code:Not any and every being is not any and every being.

Which means any and every being is any and every (other) being.

The second and last "interpretation" takes nothing as being something called "nothing":

Code:Something we call "nothing" is not any and every being.

Both interpretations are contradictory. The first because, if any and every being is any and every other being, it is not itself, hence is nothing -- so it takes any and every being as being nothing. And the second for the same reason: it takes "nothing" both as a being (something) and nothing.

This is just because nothing is both a being and nothing, since this follows from the very definition of nothing by means of a sound reasoning.

0 Replies

@guigus,

I don't recall ever being asked that question. Why do you asume that I cannot face it, or were you generalising?

Are you asking me that question?

I will answer anyway: Does zero exist?

As for death - Define it? I define it as the cessation of life. Now define 'Life'? I define this as having the ability to absorb, expand and discharge - This covers all physical forms. (There are no non-physical forms)

Origin of universe? It has always been, ergo has no origin.

Even if you restrict your imaginings to the solitary BB theory, all material contained in your singularity prior to the event must be equal to the material that is now present, ergo has always been.

Even if you imagine further and settle on an infinite quantity of multiverses, you will realise that each and every one of those are merely parts of the whole (The Omniverse) - A boundless expanse of material (life/energy) occupying ALL locations.

And each must infinitely alter shape and form (every shape and form). And each must (as infinity demands) ultimately self-replicate. Smile

Mark...

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
If that can be applied to apples you may have just solved the global food problem.

That was a very nice way to start my day...I am still laughing with the simple efficiency of your joke...congrats are in place Cyr !

(...just imagine what Newton would have thought if apples were to fall out of nowhere...maybe we would have multi-dimensional gravity allot sooner !... )

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

While you laugh, I think:

1) No number multiplied by zero equals one.
2) Nothing other than a number multiplied by zero equals one.
3) Nothing multiplied by zero equals one.
4) Zero multiplied by zero does not equal one.
5) Nothing is different from zero.
6) Everything is identical to zero.
7) All quantities are zero.
8) There is no quantity.
9) Everything has no quantity.
10) Everything has no quality.
11) Everything is identical to nothing.
12) Zero is identical to nothing.
13) One is identical to nothing.
14) One is identical to zero.
15) Nothing (zero) multiplied by zero (zero) equals one (zero).

So it is impossible to use "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" to solve any problems by taking "nothing" as meaning "something," since whenever being and nothingness are the same, there are no longer any problems to solve.

0 Replies

guigus
I have a friend who makes nonsensical claims sometimes, only to try to convince us (and himself) that his thinking is so superior that we just have to take him on faith. He sees himself as the center of the universe, and his explanations are right, all others are wrong. Even if you agree with him you are still inferior, since you cannot say it as well as he can (in his opinion, which is not an opinion, but universal law).
In short, he reminds me of you, but he has OCPD....

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus
I have a friend who makes nonsensical claims sometimes, only to try to convince us (and himself) that his thinking is so superior that we just have to take him on faith. He sees himself as the center of the universe, and his explanations are right, all others are wrong. Even if you agree with him you are still inferior, since you cannot say it as well as he can (in his opinion, which is not an opinion, but universal law).
In short, he reminds me of you, but he has OCPD....

Sorry, but all this is irrelevant to me: this is a place for people to discuss philosophy, so I'm still waiting for an answer to my carefully explained reasoning. Who are your friends or who I remind you of is not my problem.

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know