DOES NOTHING EXIST???

If you would like to change the topic to something that's more appropriate to argue about, then I would be more inclined to actually participate. I'd rather not get into a petty bickering match for I have no doubt that is where this will lead...now if you wanna start a "yo mama" argument, then I down for that.

Oh,oh, mama talk.

Good, because I have no interest in that either, even though your comment isn't likely to promote anything else... I was relating facts of this thread, which are all well documented in previous pages. That's the beauty of written communication; every word is saved. Personally I can't be asked to revisit it again though.

Based on your previous statement, I sort of thought other wise. The comment stating "What a convincing argument...". Just out of curiosity, which of my comments isn't likely to promote anything else? I've actually looked at the last 7 pages of the argument between you and Guigus and have seen all that's been said between each of you. I also never asked you to "revisit" it, nor would I. I'm not even asking for you to be involved. I'm simply going to try and approach this conversation from a different angle. You try and push and shove your idea's around when some people just need a little tug...figuratively speaking of course.

When I said "what a convincing arguemnt" that was a response to your comment "...that's where you fail", which is the comment I thought was unlikely to promote anything but a petty bickering match.

But to return to the topic, I have been trying to tell guigus that the aspects of "nothing" that he puts at the foundation of his thinking is just a metaphysical reflection of what we call "thingness", and that the grounds on which he says "nothing" has form is merely a phenomenon of the gammar of language, not the of meanings of words themselves.

I was really just commenting on your frustration (completely understandable), and your "giving up" after your "barrage" of explainations. With that statement in mind, it seems as if you're more interested in proving him wrong rather than finding out how Guigus just may be right. I'm not saying that the theory is correct. I'm just saying that when you throw around a barrage of explanations and talk about how someone is wrong at every turn, then they can shut down and just spout out the same thing about how right they are and that everything else is wrong...which is what's happening. It's not about the answer, it's about the "thread" in which we arrived to that answer.

Perhaps. And guigus may have a good idea, but if he does, he hasn't succeeded in presenting it. What he presents as "logical arguments" are in fact nothing of the kind.
If I said "because blue is a color, and because water is wet, all birds sing in G minor" that would not be a logical argument. This is an extreme example, but the gist of it is the same as in what he presents as "arguments" for his theory. I cannot in good conscience indulge him on that.

It is not so much about proving him wrong as getting him to address the points he needs to cover to make a coherent presentation. His way of dealing with them is ignoring them.

As far as your complaints about his "logical arguments" not being logical, could you please list an example? I can pick from several that I think you might choose but I would like something that you think is completely "off-the-wall" and I'll try to rationalize it a bit. I don't yet have a completely clear understanding of his "theory" but I'm think I'm pretty good at trying to rationalize and explain things in various ways. As far as your "addressing" the points he needs to cover, it seemed to me that you were more attacking those points.

Here's an example:



First he says that "nothing is not each being". Whatever nothing may be, it is not "each being", or does he mean that it is "not each being". What does he mean by "each being"? I am a being, so I think it is fair to assume that "each being" refers to me as one of these beings. So "I am not nothing"...

But then "not each being is not each being". "Not me is not me"? Or perhaps, if we flip it around "Me is me" or "I am me"...

And from this we are to conclude that "I am you"? Or as he puts it "Any being is any other being"....

So...
I am not nothing
I am me
I am you

There it is in plain english... make sense much?
Or perhaps this wasn't what he intended for it to mean at all, but then the "argument" is so ambiguous that it falls apart on that account. It serves to confuse matters rather than clarify them...

Have a crack at it please, and tell me what you make of it.

well guigus what is your response ?

if you can't make clear what you mean , then really , you don't understand what your saying

Ok *cracks knuckles* as stated by Guigus, you're thinking of "nothing" as the definition rather than the representation of the definition and our connection to it. As you are most likely aware, the opposite of "nothing" is "something", but what is something? Something is simply a definition, a title for something else that we label with our conciousness. Without consciousness those titles and all the differences between everything "crumble" into "nothing" and everything then becomes one in that "nothing".

Now as far as those separate statments:

1) I believe the first means that "nothing" is not each being because that would imply that it's separated between each of us, while it's all of us.

2) With the second, I'm not quite certain, but I think it would make more sense in how you separate it, "not each being" is "not" "each being". So with your example it would be, "not me" is "not" "me". So in nothing we are and will always be nothing, while when we are something, we're whatever our titles portray us as.

3) Now the third basically states that in nothing we are all nothing, so everything is the same shade of gray so to speak...basically every "being" is the same.

Now I know I could be totally off on that because because I'm not as familiar with the idea, but from what I understand about it, that's the best rational I can give at this time. If you present a rebuttal on this "rationalization" then I can comment further on that.

something is not merely a definition but a fundamental reality of what is necessary to manifest a physical reality

regardless of language and definitions the fundamental reality of the periodic table , is an absolute truth

You say that "nothing" is the opposite of "something". But I do not agree. The opposite of 0 (as "nothing" is often symbolized with) is not 1. "Nothing" is the absence of "something" they way I see it. You start with "thing" and realize you have zero amount of that thing and add the negation "no" to it. It is not an opposite in the same way that left is the opposite to right.
And without "thing" in the first place, "nothing" doesn't have meaning. I honestly cannot think of any scenario where the word "nothing" is used without referring to something specific.
"What do you have in your hand?" - "Nothing".
"what did you say?" - Nothing".
"In terms of biologic reproduction, what happens when to people of the same gender have sex?" - "Nothing".

Seems to me attacking the issue from the other end is a bit like the rather comical situation in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide, where they have the answer to life, the universe and everything. It's 42, but they can't make sense of it, because they don't have the question.

And regarding the argument, he may mean what you say in 3), but I still say that it isn't a conclusion of the premises, which means it is not really an argument. But what is "in nothing"? It seems to me the idea of "absolute nonexistence" is a metaphysical fantasy.It is the same mental trick we perform when we say "the universe is everything" and then proceed to ask "but what is outside of the universe (everything)" simply because our grammar, our language, lets us pose the question grammatically. But if we have already defined the universe as everything then that is just what it is, just because our minds can conceive of "beyond it" doesn't mean that it is a valid proposition.
It also does not mean that beyond "everything" there is nothing. That problem is false, there is no answer because it's a trick words play on us.

"In nothing", as you said earier implies that "nothing" is a state of being. I don't think that is the case. I am now, and when I die and my body has completely disintegrated I am not a being "in nothing". I am simply not a being anymore. Perhaps my mental activity has disengaged from my physical form and continued somewhere else, I don't know, and I think no one knows. I rather think not, and count it a blessing. But my physical form has disintegrated and become part of a whole lot of other physical forms. The energy that was mine to command for a time is simply redistributed, not gone.

That's what "nothing" says, not me: I am just making it explicit.

A being is not no being, hence not no thing, hence not nothing. So each being is not nothing, or nothing is not each being.

Nothing is not each being: this is the meaning of the word. The consequences are the ones you are having a hard time to accept. But remember: things are what they are, not what you want them to be---philosophy is not the love of speculation, but of wisdom:



And although you can always make "nothing" mean "something," this will not avoid the above, since you cannot make nothing stop meaning "no thing": despite its derived meaning of "something," its primary meaning remains "no thing."

You can, actually. Have you ever had a conversation with someone and have someone else walk up and say "what are you guys talking about". Now, if you don't want that person to know what you were talking about, or if you don't care to repeat everything you may simply say "nothing". In that case the word doesn't mean "no thing" because it is clear to everyone that you were in fact talking about something. In that case "nothing" simply means "it does not concern you, and so you needn't know".

1. The word "nothing" in that case means "we were talking about no subject" (for a "thing" to mean a "subject" you need a context in which all things are subjects: only then you can use "nothing" as the same as "no subject").
2. The meaning you refer to is an implicit meaning of such a declaration as a whole (we were talking about nothing), rather than the meaning of the word "nothing" itself.

There is no meaning of the word "nothing" istself... That's the whole point. For "nothing" to be meaningful at all you need a context.

Actually, whenever something is placed into context, it's meaning is actually dilluted. In a sense, that would actually make it less meaningful than it is within ourselves which is the entire problem between the two of you. Meaning, actually, has very little to do with context. Think of context as kind of like the corset on a woman, it's not really made to fit her, it's made for her to fit it.

What is the "context" of words in a dictionary?

It's not words in a dictionary, it's words in a civilization. This is about our agreement on words as symbols. Until we agree that nothing means nothing it means nothing...