DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Your trail of thought is too ambiguous for my taste.

It is not my thought: it is mathematics, nothing, zero, and everything else that is ambiguous. Yet if you have the balls to accept it and follow its logical consequences, you will find that this ambiguity is very, very well organized.

Cyracuz wrote:

I have no further objections, mostly because those I already raised aren't being heard.

Your objections have been heard, as also falsified. We began with the word "nothing," remember? And your only "objection" was that such a word means "no thing," which was just my starting point, rather than an objection:

If the word "nothing" means "no thing," then it means "not any thing." But it means also "not every thing," since being no particular thing is not yet enough to be nothing: it must be also no other thing, hence not every thing. Conversely, being not every thing is also not yet enough to be nothing, since it could still be some particular thing, despite not being the totality of things. That is, the word "nothing" means "not any and every thing."

Knowing this, if we substitute the word by its very definition in that same definition, we get:

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

Which means that "any and every thing is any and every other thing." Quite a chock!

Cyracuz wrote:

Googling "nothing" gives a better idea of what the concept is about than reading your descriptions, which only serve to introduce alot of confusion.

Googling "nothing" will also give you my "descriptions," which are in fact demonstrations -- still expecting you to falsify them.

Cyracuz wrote:

But one point I have to concede. I am far dumber than you for keeping this up for as long as I have.

That's a pretty coward strategy, don't you think? And it will certainly not benefit your intelligence. Listen to yourself:

Cyracuz wrote:

[...] you seem to think that making **** up is preferable to learning.

1 Reply

@guigus,

The following shows that "nothing" is a contradictory concept:

If the word "nothing" means "no thing," then it means "not any thing." But it means also "not every thing," since being no particular thing is not yet enough to be nothing: it must be also no other thing, hence not every thing. Conversely, being not every thing is also not yet enough to be nothing, since it could still be some particular thing, despite not being the totality of things. That is, the word "nothing" means "not any and every thing."

Knowing this, if we substitute the word "nothing" by its very definition (not any and every thing) in that same definition, we get:

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

Which means that "any and every thing is any and every other thing." And we finally realize that by saying that "nothing is no thing" we meant rather that:

Code:Something called "nothing" is no thing.

And we realize that because, when we try to mean by "nothing" what it really means, we get quite another statement, namely, that any and every thing is any and every other thing. Now of course many people will prefer to ignore this and return to the safety of the original unawareness of the ambiguity of "nothing is no thing." They will do many searches on Google presenting them the definition of "nothing" in the form of many different sentences to distract them and prevent them from thinking about its meaning. They will even cynically say that "ignorance is bliss." But facts are facts: the above reasoning just makes the very meaning of "nothing" itself explicit, hence making us aware of its internal contradiction.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

If the word "nothing" means "no thing," then it means "not any thing." But it means also "not every thing," since being no particular thing is not yet enough to be nothing:

No thing is enough, if you can read right that is...

Quote:

that any and every thing is any and every other thing.

...you have a serious problem with reading properly to put it mildly...

1 - ...anything amounts only to "thingness", a shared state for all things, and not as you suggest, that a certain particular thing can be other thing...

2 - Everything amounts to all things there is out there, and such that for this set there is no need for the term other !...(once all is implied)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
If the word "nothing" means "no thing," then it means "not any thing." But it means also "not every thing," since being no particular thing is not yet enough to be nothing:

No thing is enough, if you can read right that is...

Are you suggesting that reading "no thing" as meaning "not any and every thing" is wrong? If so, then this is just another way of saying that nothing is something...

What you are calling to "read right" is just reading "nothing" as meaning "something," which you then contradictorily declare to be "no thing." If you read it, as you say, properly, then you get precisely my result. In fact, all I am doing is just reading "nothing" properly.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
that any and every thing is any and every other thing.

...you have a serious problem with reading properly to put it mildly...

No, it is you that has a serious problem reading "nothing" as meaning what you says it means.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

1 - ...anything amounts only to "thingness", a shared state for all things, and not as you suggest, that a certain particular thing can be other thing...

That's not my suggestion, but a logical consequence of the meaning of "nothing" itself:

Code:Not any and every being (no thing) is not any and every being.

Sorry, but that's what you get when you replace "nothing" by "not any and every being" in the sentence "nothing is any and every being" (the rigorous definition of "nothing").

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - Everything amounts to all things there is out there, and such that for this set there is no need for the term other !...(once all is implied)

Sure there is: besides the totality of things, there is the particularity of each thing. Nothing is not just not the totality of things. For example, you are not the totality of things, and even so you are something, right? So being not the totality of things does not define "nothing": it must be also not any particular thing. Neither being not any particular thing defines "nothing," since it must also be no other particular thing, that is, not every thing. For example, you are a particular being, so "any particular being" could mean you. And "nothing" is not you, but that is not enough: it must also be not any other being: nothing is not any and every being.

2 Replies

@guigus,

A correction:

guigus wrote:

Sorry, but that's what you get when you replace "nothing" by "not any and every being" in the sentence "nothing is not any and every being" (the rigorous definition of "nothing").

0 Replies

@mark noble,

All I can be sure of is that I exist, but not how.

“I am my world,” said Wittgenstein, suggesting that the subject and the world it appears to inhabit are in fact one and the same. However, I stride one step further and declare that I am the world. The only world that I know of – and can know of – is that of my experience, and that experience is what I call ‘me’.

I am everything – and yet I am nothing, as, with Wittgenstein, “a nothing would serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said”. While it is possible for me to communicate with other apparent selves about an apparently shared world, all attempts to describe my experience fall not just short, but completely fail; I simply cannot describe the aroma of coffee. I have no proof of me, and therefore of anything.

It is for this reason that art stirs such passion, as it is the attempt to communicate what cannot be communicated and thereby reinforce our existence. Art begets frustration, excitement, anger, joy and sadness, as human beings – who believe their startling success is a product of communication – are faced with their abject failure to convey, in anything other than allegory, what they are most intimately aware of. We know, in the true sense, only one thing, and we are unable to share it. It drives us crazy.

All I can say is that to be me is to think, to feel, to perceive, to intuit. Yet this tells me only that I am, not what I am, ontologically. I cannot know what I am because I am blinded by the inexorable force of existence. There is not only no before or after me, there is no before or after the moment. The moment is therefore everything. I simply have no time to identify the truth.

2 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

Are you suggesting that reading "no thing" as meaning "not any and every thing" is wrong? If so, then this is just another way of saying that nothing is something...

I am saying it is redundant ! Nothing = No thing...none !!! (and its enough)

Quote:

That's not my suggestion, but a logical consequence of the meaning of "nothing" itself:

What ? that anything is other thing ? geeee...any means one in particular out of all in potential, get it ??? So if any of them all, then necessarily one...one that shares the "thingness" with all of them but that does not need to share everything else, thus that cannot be converted in anything else only by the "thingness" it has !

More:

Excluding the totality of things amounts to excluding every in particular, so again you are redundant in your assessments !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that reading "no thing" as meaning "not any and every thing" is wrong? If so, then this is just another way of saying that nothing is something...

I am saying it is redundant ! Nothing = No thing...none !!! (and its enough)

Quote:
That's not my suggestion, but a logical consequence of the meaning of "nothing" itself:

What ? that anything is other thing ? geeee...any means one in particular out of all in potential, get it ??? So if any of them all, then necessarily one...one that shares the "thingness" with all of them but that does not need to share everything else, thus that cannot be converted in anything else only by the "thingness" it has !

More:

Excluding the totality of things amounts to excluding every in particular, so again you are redundant in your assessments !

Suppose you say that not any thing is yellow. Then, you are saying that at least one thing is of another color, not that no thing is yellow. So not being any (particular) thing leaves the possibility of still being something. On the other hand, you are not everything, and even so you are something. So not being everything also leaves the possibility of still being something. That's why nothing is both not any and not every thing: it is very important that you define "nothing" rigorously, so you don't fool yourself when reasoning about it.

1 Reply

@dansumners,

dansumners wrote:

All I can be sure of is that I exist, but not how.

“I am my world,” said Wittgenstein, suggesting that the subject and the world it appears to inhabit are in fact one and the same. However, I stride one step further and declare that I am the world. The only world that I know of – and can know of – is that of my experience, and that experience is what I call ‘me’.

I am everything – and yet I am nothing, as, with Wittgenstein, “a nothing would serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said”. While it is possible for me to communicate with other apparent selves about an apparently shared world, all attempts to describe my experience fall not just short, but completely fail; I simply cannot describe the aroma of coffee. I have no proof of me, and therefore of anything.

It is for this reason that art stirs such passion, as it is the attempt to communicate what cannot be communicated and thereby reinforce our existence. Art begets frustration, excitement, anger, joy and sadness, as human beings – who believe their startling success is a product of communication – are faced with their abject failure to convey, in anything other than allegory, what they are most intimately aware of. We know, in the true sense, only one thing, and we are unable to share it. It drives us crazy.

All I can say is that to be me is to think, to feel, to perceive, to intuit. Yet this tells me only that I am, not what I am, ontologically. I cannot know what I am because I am blinded by the inexorable force of existence. There is not only no before or after me, there is no before or after the moment. The moment is therefore everything. I simply have no time to identify the truth.

One of the consequences of what I am saying is that being and nothingness are the same, despite also not being the same. So, at some level, you are the world, you are everything, you are nothing, and you are anything else -- but at some level, and it is mister to know at what level you can say each of those things, and others, or what you get is just madness.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

Suppose you say that not any thing is yellow. Then, you are saying that at least one thing is of another color,

Mostly, and with rigour Guigus, what I am saying is that yellow is not a thing. Which obviously is false once yellow refers as a colour...simple !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Suppose you say that not any thing is yellow. Then, you are saying that at least one thing is of another color,

Mostly, and with rigour Guigus, what I am saying is that yellow is not a thing. Which obviously is false once yellow refers as a colour...simple !

That's irrelevant regarding the example I gave you: it refers to the use of the words "any" and "every."

1 Reply

@guigus,

Wrong again, if you say that ANY thing is not yellow, you are actually saying that any of them all, all that exist as things, are not yellow...so that yellow it is not a thing...meaning, if you say any you say every !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Wrong again, if you say that ANY thing is not yellow, you are actually saying that any of them all, all that exist as things, are not yellow...so that yellow it is not a thing...meaning, if you say any you say every !

Let me rephrase, or you'll remain stuck in this forever:

Suppose you say that not any thing has a yellow color. Then, you are saying that at least one thing has another color, not that no thing has a yellow color. So, regarding "nothing," not being any (particular) thing leaves the possibility of still being something (else). On the other hand, you are not everything, and even so you are something. So not being everything also leaves the possibility of still being something. That's why nothing is both not any and not every thing: it is very important that you define "nothing" rigorously, so you don't fool yourself when reasoning about it.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Suppose you say that not any thing has a yellow color. Then, you are saying that at least one thing has another color, not that no thing has a yellow color.

No. If you say that not any thing (nothing) has a yellow color, it just means that nothing has a yellow color. It does not logically follow from this statement that at least one thing has antoher color.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Suppose you say that not any thing has a yellow color. Then, you are saying that at least one thing has another color, not that no thing has a yellow color.

No. If you say that not any thing (nothing) has a yellow color, it just means that nothing has a yellow color. It does not logically follow from this statement that at least one thing has antoher color.

You are just presupposing that "not any thing" is already "nothing," which is precisely what I am showing you it is not (yet): when I say that "not any animals are men," I am saying that, although some animals are men, some others are not.

3 Replies

@guigus,

You are not showing that. You are confusing yourself. What is the purpose of your line of thinking? What do you want to achieve with it?

0 Replies

@dansumners,

Hi Dan!

Great post! With the exception of your potential ability to be 'Nothing' I agree with it completely - You cannot BE nothing, if Nothing cannot be Smile

.

As for you being everything - Indeed you are.

Mark...

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

when I say that "not any animals are men," I am saying that, although some animals are men, some others are not.

No. If that is what you mean, you will have to phrase it differently, because what you said here is just plain wrong.

If you say "not any animals are men", 99,9% of the english speaking population of the world would understand this as "men are not animals". Now, do you think it is reasonable that the whole world adopts a new definition of words just to understand you?

And I believe the way to say it is: All men are animals, but not all animals are men.

"Not any" means "none". If you put "thing" behind "not any" it means "nothing", and if you put "body" behind "not any" it means "nobody".

Btw, can you pm me your mother's account nr. I'm gonna send her a bill for your tuition.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
when I say that "not any animals are men," I am saying that, although some animals are men, some others are not.

No. If that is what you mean, you will have to phrase it differently, because what you said here is just plain wrong.

If you say "not any animals are men", 99,9% of the english speaking population of the world would understand this as "men are not animals". Now, do you think it is reasonable that the whole world adopts a new definition of words just to understand you?

And I believe the way to say it is: All men are animals, but not all animals are men.

"Not any" means "none". If you put "thing" behind "not any" it means "nothing", and if you put "body" behind "not any" it means "nobody".

Btw, can you pm me your mother's account nr. I'm gonna send her a bill for your tuition.

The problem with "any" is that it possibly means "one or more" instead of "every":

TheFreeDictionary wrote:

"Any one or more persons, things, or quantities." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/any).

Which is doing no good to my argument, so let me replace it, along with "every," by "each," which has a much more stable meaning:

TheFreeDictionary wrote:

Every one of a group considered individually; each one. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/any).

Then we have:

Code:Nothing is not each being.

Thus:

Code:Not each being is not each being.

Which means any being is any other being.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Suppose you say that not any thing has a yellow color. Then, you are saying that at least one thing has another color, not that no thing has a yellow color.

No. If you say that not any thing (nothing) has a yellow color, it just means that nothing has a yellow color. It does not logically follow from this statement that at least one thing has antoher color.

You are just presupposing that "not any thing" is already "nothing," which is precisely what I am showing you it is not (yet): when I say that "not any animals are men," I am saying that, although some animals are men, some others are not.

Actually you are really saying, "it is not the case that for all x".

We cannot infer from the proposition, "for all x, x is not yellow" the proposition that "there is an x, such that x is blue, or green, or red, etc.". This is not the same as saying "there is an x, such that x is not yellow". For whatever x, that x may not have any color at all (colorless), and hence we cannot infer that that x necessarily has another color.

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know