DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@igm,

i agree.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Define existence: a concept that a thing that exists has a defining characteristic that it must start and/or have duration.

A "thing that exists" is already an existence (a being), and because it must exist in order to have any "characteristic," you are just presupposing existence rather than defining it.

igm wrote:

Define nothing: a concept which must have the defining characteristic that it hasn’t started nor does it have duration.

Nothing is not the concept of nothing: you mean nothing refers to something that has not started or had any duration. Don't confuse the concept with whatever it refers to.

igm wrote:

Conclusion: ‘nothing’ is only a concept and by definition and by one of its defining characteristics it cannot exist.

You are taking your presupposition for a conclusion: a conclusion follows from something.

If a concept refers to nothing, then it does not exist. But the concept of nothing exists. Hence, it must refer to something.

1 Reply

@guigus,

igm wrote:

Define existence: a concept that a thing that exists has a defining characteristic that it must start and/or have duration.

guigus wrote:

A "thing that exists" is already an existence (a being), and because it must exist in order to have any "characteristic," you are just presupposing existence rather than defining it.

I defined it as a ‘concept’. That’s different isn’t it?

igm wrote:

Define nothing: a concept which must have the defining characteristic that it hasn’t started nor does it have duration.

guigus wrote:

Nothing is not the concept of nothing: you mean nothing refers to something that has not started or had any duration. Don't confuse the concept with whatever it refers to.

I’d say ‘nothing’ is never more than a concept the opposite of the concept of something which is synonymous with ‘existence’.

igm wrote:

Conclusion: ‘nothing’ is only a concept and by definition and by one of its defining characteristics it cannot exist.

guigus wrote:

You are taking your presupposition for a conclusion: a conclusion follows from something.

If a concept refers to nothing, then it does not exist. But the concept of nothing exists. Hence, it must refer to something.

The ‘concept of nothing’ is not the same as ‘nothing’ therefore the concept can be referred to without inferring the existence of ‘nothing'.

1 Reply

Guigus, I'm (almost) confused. You say that "If a concept refers to nothing, then it does not exist. But the concept of nothing exists. Hence, it must refer to something." This is reminiscent of what I recall as the Ontological Proof for the existence of God, i.e., if we have concept of God, there must be a God.
If a concept refers to a negative value, viz., nothing, then, you say, IT does not exist. But, you say, the concept of nothing does exist, Hence, it must refer to something. Do you mean that the concept, nothing, does not exist or that it has no referent? It seems to me that the concept does in this case have a referent, but it is not an empirical referent; it is only an abstraction, an expression of our creative capacity. It does not describe the world; it describes our mental activity in the world.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

that makes sense...

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

igm wrote:

Define existence: a concept that a thing that exists has a defining characteristic that it must start and/or have duration.

guigus wrote:
A "thing that exists" is already an existence (a being), and because it must exist in order to have any "characteristic," you are just presupposing existence rather than defining it.

I defined it as a ‘concept’. That’s different isn’t it?

The problem is in how you did that, which was not a proper definition.

igm wrote:

igm wrote:
Define nothing: a concept which must have the defining characteristic that it hasn’t started nor does it have duration.

guigus wrote:
Nothing is not the concept of nothing: you mean nothing refers to something that has not started or had any duration. Don't confuse the concept with whatever it refers to.

I’d say ‘nothing’ is never more than a concept the opposite of the concept of something which is synonymous with ‘existence’.

Being a negative concept is not the same as not being a concept.

igm wrote:

Conclusion: ‘nothing’ is only a concept and by definition and by one of its defining characteristics it cannot exist.

guigus wrote:

guigus wrote:
You are taking your presupposition for a conclusion: a conclusion follows from something.

If a concept refers to nothing, then it does not exist. But the concept of nothing exists. Hence, it must refer to something.

The ‘concept of nothing’ is not the same as ‘nothing’ therefore the concept can be referred to without inferring the existence of ‘nothing'.

My argument is based precisely on that distinction: please read again what I said.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Guigus, I'm (almost) confused. You say that "If a concept refers to nothing, then it does not exist. But the concept of nothing exists. Hence, it must refer to something." This is reminiscent of what I recall as the Ontological Proof for the existence of God, i.e., if we have concept of God, there must be a God.
If a concept refers to a negative value, viz., nothing, then, you say, IT does not exist. But, you say, the concept of nothing does exist, Hence, it must refer to something. Do you mean that the concept, nothing, does not exist or that it has no referent? It seems to me that the concept does in this case have a referent, but it is not an empirical referent; it is only an abstraction, an expression of our creative capacity. It does not describe the world; it describes our mental activity in the world.

Can you (honestly) conceive of a concept without any referent?

So nothing, to be a concept, must have a referent. But as you pointed out, its referent is nothing, so nothing must be something, which is what I have been saying for quite a while now.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Do you mean that the concept, nothing, does not exist or that it has no referent? It seems to me that the concept does in this case have a referent, but it is not an empirical referent; it is only an abstraction, an expression of our creative capacity. It does not describe the world; it describes our mental activity in the world.

If nothing referred to our mental activity in the world, then it would no longer refer to nothing. The concept that refers to our mental activity in the world is "mental activity."

0 Replies

@guigus,

Let me see, a concept with no referent. How about a construct that refers only to itself? It is completely reflexive, going nowhere. This needs more thought; it's the kind of puzzle that I'm not likely to solve or resolve logically. It must come to me in an intuitive flash, like that of the mathematician.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Let me see, a concept with no referent. How about a construct that refers only to itself? It is completely reflexive, going nowhere. This needs more thought; it's the kind of puzzle that I'm not likely to solve or resolve logically. It must come to me in an intuitive flash, like that of the mathematician.

That certainly needs more thought, namely, the thought that a concept referring to itself has itself as a referent, rather than having no referent---which is called self-reference (rather than null-reference).

No "intuitive flash" is needed: the only concept with no referent is nothing. Indeed, it's its definition: a concept with no referent---hence its inherent contradiction, as any concept must have a referent.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Let me see, a concept with no referent. How about a construct that refers only to itself? It is completely reflexive, going nowhere.

Let me explain things a little better. What you are doing here is creating a "law" that rules out self-reference as an acceptable instance of reference. You may be surprised, but you are not the first to try that one. Many have tried before you, usually to solve the Liar Paradox. Unfortunately, they ended "going nowhere." On the other hand, there are many others willing to recognize that only God should have the power of creating logical rules. (Honestly: would you rigorously follow a logical rule if you knew it was arbitrarily created by someone? Well, perhaps you would.)

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

The problem is in how you did that, which was not a proper definition. .

There is some redundancy in what I’ve said in order to make it easily readable. Of course to say ‘thing’ is to also imply that it has the characteristic of being existent. I’ll reword what I’ve said:

For the ‘thing’ to truly exist it must have the characteristic of having duration if it has duration it is possible that it started to exist in the past. If the ‘thing’ has no duration then it cannot start nor is it existent.

Therefore ‘nothing’ doesn’t have duration because ‘nothing’ is not ‘something’ and ‘something’ is existent and has duration therefore ‘nothing’ must lack duration as it is the opposite of ‘something’ so it isn’t existent and it can never start.

Conclusion: Does ‘nothing’ exist? No.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

guigus wrote:
The problem is in how you did that, which was not a proper definition. .

There is some redundancy in what I’ve said in order to make it easily readable. Of course to say ‘thing’ is to also imply that it has the characteristic of being existent. I’ll reword what I’ve said:

For the ‘thing’ to truly exist it must have the characteristic of having duration if it has duration it is possible that it started to exist in the past. If the ‘thing’ has no duration then it cannot start nor is it existent.

If you want to really understand what nothing means, try to imagine something you cannot even refer to: if you can refer to something, even without its duration, then it is not yet nothing.

igm wrote:

Therefore ‘nothing’ doesn’t have duration because ‘nothing’ is not ‘something’ and ‘something’ is existent and has duration therefore ‘nothing’ must lack duration as it is the opposite of ‘something’ so it isn’t existent and it can never start.

Conclusion: Does ‘nothing’ exist? No.

Let me be clear about this: although your "conclusion" is correct, it is by no means a "conclusion." Nothing is the negation of being, by definition: this is a point of departure, not of arrival.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Let me be clear about this: although your "conclusion" is correct, it is by no means a "conclusion." Nothing is the negation of being, by definition: this is a point of departure, not of arrival.

Thanks for your reply.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

guigus wrote:

Let me be clear about this: although your "conclusion" is correct, it is by no means a "conclusion." Nothing is the negation of being, by definition: this is a point of departure, not of arrival.

Thanks for your reply.

The problem is precisely to departure from that point:

Code:

Nothing is not each being.

Not each being is not each being.

Any being is any other being.

So nothing also means everything (the key here is the word "also").

0 Replies

Or even more clearly:

Code:

Nothing is not any single being.

Nothing is not every single being.

Not any single being is not every single being.

Any being is any other being.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Or even more clearly:

Code:Nothing is not any single being. Nothing is not every single being. Not any single being is not every single being. Any being is any other being.

Your code means this when simplified:
A is not B (lines 1 & 2)
A is A (line 3)
B is B (line 4)

This is a proof that 'Nothing' is not 'Being' i.e. A is not B (or am I wrong?). Is this what you wanted to prove (e.g. that nothing is not something)? Surely we all know this in the same way we know that black is not white.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

guigus wrote:

Or even more clearly:

Code:Nothing is not any single being. Nothing is not every single being. Not any single being is not every single being. Any being is any other being.

Your code means this when simplified:
A is not B (lines 1 & 2)
A is A (line 3)
B is B (line 4)

This is a proof that 'Nothing' is not 'Being' i.e. A is not B (or am I wrong?). Is this what you wanted to prove (e.g. that nothing is not something)? Surely we all know this in the same way we know that black is not white.

Please read what is written, and stop trying to "simplify" what is already simple: you are as far from what I am saying as one can imagine---try to understand before trying to discuss.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

guigus wrote:

Or even more clearly:

Code:Nothing is not any single being. Nothing is not every single being. Not any single being is not every single being. Any being is any other being.

Your code means this when simplified:
A is not B (lines 1 & 2)
A is A (line 3)
B is B (line 4)

This is a proof that 'Nothing' is not 'Being' i.e. A is not B (or am I wrong?). Is this what you wanted to prove (e.g. that nothing is not something)? Surely we all know this in the same way we know that black is not white.

First, what is the point in replacing "nothing" with "A"? What is "A"? A being? But I am talking about nothing. And if "A" means nothing, then why use "A" instead of "nothing"? What is the purpose of this?

Second, the reasoning I am presenting depends on the difference between "any" and "every," which you simply destroyed by replacing them both by a meaningless "B"---which is not only pointless but also wrong: the second sentence is not a repetition of the first.

So please read what I wrote, as (carefully as) I wrote it, or you will be discussing with yourself rather than with me:

Code:

Nothing is not any single being.

Nothing is not every single being.

Not any single being is not every single being.

Any being is any other being.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Code:Nothing is not any single being. Nothing is not every single being. Not any single being is not every single being. Any being is any other being.

I don’t understand your code so I’ll have to leave it there.

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know