guigus
 
  1  
Mon 2 May, 2011 08:21 pm
@north,
north wrote:

TheoryJester wrote:

I think It very possible that nothing exists.
Why not?
If something has the potential to exist then it must also have a potential not to exist.


IT DOESN'T that the thing

what properties do existence have that non-existence haven't ?

the exact opposite to each other

so if non-existence came first , HOW would existence come from non-existence ?


Existence didn't come from nonexistence, neither the opposite: they were always the same.
TheoryJester
 
  1  
Tue 3 May, 2011 02:33 am
@north,
I would never suggest that existence simply appeared from nothing. Every reaction needs an action.
But the topic is 'Does it exist'. It has to, life and everything is made up of positives and negatives (arguably neutral as well)
exact opposites..you are exactly right
'Nothingness' has no choice it has to exist because 'something' exists
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 3 May, 2011 04:16 am
@TheoryJester,
TheoryJester wrote:

I would never suggest that existence simply appeared from nothing. Every reaction needs an action.
But the topic is 'Does it exist'. It has to, life and everything is made up of positives and negatives (arguably neutral as well)
exact opposites..you are exactly right
'Nothingness' has no choice it has to exist because 'something' exists


If nothing did not exist, then everything would exist, including whatever does not exist, so nothing must exist. Even though, if nothing existed, then everything would not exist, so nothing must not exist.
TheoryJester
 
  1  
Tue 3 May, 2011 07:07 pm
@guigus,
Ok so I really need to consider at what scale can nothing exist. Here on earth it is full of somethings, even the air.
I place my hand out(which is something) for it to occupy that space in front of me there needs to be nothing there. But there is something there, the air which I guess is only 'close' to nothing.
If there really was nothing, anything which moved into that space would also become nothing?
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 3 May, 2011 08:11 pm
@TheoryJester,
TheoryJester wrote:

Ok so I really need to consider at what scale can nothing exist. Here on earth it is full of somethings, even the air.
I place my hand out(which is something) for it to occupy that space in front of me there needs to be nothing there. But there is something there, the air which I guess is only 'close' to nothing.
If there really was nothing, anything which moved into that space would also become nothing?


You just said the magic word: become. If everything were just a being, then there would be no change: we would live in a Parmenidean world. But since there is change, somehow being and nothingness must be the same.

I suggest you read Hegel's Logic (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm) a little to have a better idea of what I am saying.
TheoryJester
 
  1  
Tue 3 May, 2011 08:37 pm
@guigus,
Thank you for Hegels link, I needed a double shot of whiskey just to get through it.
So basically he suggest that existence and non-existence are concurrently cycling throughout this reality, which in turn suggests that there will never be one without the other bringing to vision the topic of 'Infinity'
This also brings positive re-enforcement to out consciousness because it will never be 'nothing'?
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 3 May, 2011 09:07 pm
@TheoryJester,
TheoryJester wrote:

Thank you for Hegels link, I needed a double shot of whiskey just to get through it.
So basically he suggest that existence and non-existence are concurrently cycling throughout this reality, which in turn suggests that there will never be one without the other bringing to vision the topic of 'Infinity'
This also brings positive re-enforcement to out consciousness because it will never be 'nothing'?


Although Hegel is useful to show the depth and value of dialectics, you must remember that he's an idealist, which is why we had Marx after him, which is who influenced me the most. So although you are correct in saying that being and nothingness are, to use a quantum word, "entangled," there are moments of pure nothingness and pure being as well -- there must be, since they are fundamentally the same.
TheoryJester
 
  1  
Wed 4 May, 2011 05:16 am
@guigus,
Hegel an idealist?...No never. I'm just not sure that nothing can exist at the same time as something.
Is it possible that they could be alternating extremely quickly much like the frames of a film. That could possibly explain how we have motion I guess this would hint at Quantum theory etc
north
 
  1  
Wed 4 May, 2011 03:32 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

north wrote:

TheoryJester wrote:

I think It very possible that nothing exists.
Why not?
If something has the potential to exist then it must also have a potential not to exist.


IT DOESN'T that the thing

what properties do existence have that non-existence haven't ?

the exact opposite to each other

so if non-existence came first , HOW would existence come from non-existence ?



Existence didn't come from nonexistence, neither the opposite: they were always the same.


NO , they , existence and non-existence , are NOT the same , you misunderstood me

existence has four fundamental dimensions to it , length , breadth and depth and movement


non-existence has none of these and nor does it have the possibility of ever having these qualities , ever
guigus
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2011 06:23 am
@TheoryJester,
TheoryJester wrote:

Hegel an idealist?...No never. I'm just not sure that nothing can exist at the same time as something.
Is it possible that they could be alternating extremely quickly much like the frames of a film. That could possibly explain how we have motion I guess this would hint at Quantum theory etc


So now one holding the ultimate reality to be an absolute idea no longer makes him an idealist?

Nothing alternating extremely quickly with being? And which one would be the time in which they alternate?
guigus
 
  0  
Fri 6 May, 2011 06:24 am
@north,
north wrote:

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

TheoryJester wrote:

I think It very possible that nothing exists.
Why not?
If something has the potential to exist then it must also have a potential not to exist.


IT DOESN'T that the thing

what properties do existence have that non-existence haven't ?

the exact opposite to each other

so if non-existence came first , HOW would existence come from non-existence ?



Existence didn't come from nonexistence, neither the opposite: they were always the same.


NO , they , existence and non-existence , are NOT the same , you misunderstood me

existence has four fundamental dimensions to it , length , breadth and depth and movement


non-existence has none of these and nor does it have the possibility of ever having these qualities , ever


Except, of course, by being the same as existence.
TheoryJester
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2011 07:54 am
@guigus,
You missed the Sarcasm about Hegel.

Anyways, 'Nothing' can exist to the observable mind, because either something is sensed and perceived or it is not. To each of our consciousness', that which cannot be observed in any form = 'nothing'
In reality 'nothing' can never be proven or dis-proven because it lacks any observable property's in which to do so

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2011 08:47 am
@TheoryJester,
And I thinking that the lack of property's was to be enough disproof... Rolling Eyes
north
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2011 09:41 pm
@guigus,

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

TheoryJester wrote:

I think It very possible that nothing exists.
Why not?
If something has the potential to exist then it must also have a potential not to exist.


IT DOESN'T that the thing

what properties do existence have that non-existence haven't ?

the exact opposite to each other

so if non-existence came first , HOW would existence come from non-existence ?



Existence didn't come from nonexistence, neither the opposite: they were always the same.


NO , they , existence and non-existence , are NOT the same , you misunderstood me

existence has four fundamental dimensions to it , length , breadth and depth and movement


non-existence has none of these and nor does it have the possibility of ever having these qualities , ever


Quote:
Except, of course, by being the same as existence.


of which nothing is not
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Sat 7 May, 2011 04:32 am
@TheoryJester,
TheoryJester wrote:

You missed the Sarcasm about Hegel.


I am relieved.

TheoryJester wrote:
Anyways, 'Nothing' can exist to the observable mind, because either something is sensed and perceived or it is not. To each of our consciousness', that which cannot be observed in any form = 'nothing'
In reality 'nothing' can never be proven or dis-proven because it lacks any observable property's in which to do so


Whatever can or cannot be proven must be something, don't you agree? So "nothing" must be something, otherwise you are saying that not a single thing can or cannot be proven.
guigus
 
  1  
Sat 7 May, 2011 04:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

And I thinking that the lack of property's was to be enough disproof... Rolling Eyes


Being has also no properties, which according to you is enough proof that nothing exists.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Sat 7 May, 2011 07:30 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

And I thinking that the lack of property's was to be enough disproof... Rolling Eyes


Being has also no properties, which according to you is enough proof that nothing exists.


Nonsense !
Being is by definition in all that which has property´s and can manifest itself !
guigus
 
  1  
Sun 8 May, 2011 08:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

And I thinking that the lack of property's was to be enough disproof... Rolling Eyes


Being has also no properties, which according to you is enough proof that nothing exists.


Nonsense !
Being is by definition in all that which has property´s and can manifest itself !


Being as a general concept is manifestation itself, which has no properties -- you have some problems dealing with concepts in their fundamental meaning, which is the reason behind you difficulty to grasp that being and nothingness are the same.

Besides, given your perspective, if you tried to define "being" you would end up saying that "being is what is."

You should stop resorting to definitions you cannot provide.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Sun 8 May, 2011 03:51 pm
@guigus,
How do you respond to: "Being (or be-ing) is is-ing"?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Sun 8 May, 2011 05:14 pm
@guigus,
Whatever has being
is only what we are seeing.

Esse est percipi
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DOES NOTHING EXIST???
  3. » Page 30
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 02:07:33
▲ ▼