DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

You treat language as if it is some 'thing' outside of your 'self' that you use like you would a hammer. So 'nothing' is a thing that you describe and chat about incessantly without ever entertaining the possibility that who you are is 'not-a-thing-of-this-world'. All you do is defend your position because you have forgotten who you really are.

Sorry, but it is you that are treating the word "nothing" as if it were not a word at all, since it is you that are denying it its meaning, which is not any and every single being. And unless you start recognizing that meaning---as well as its logical implications---you will remain the very someone who treats the word "nothing" as just an external object.

Dasein wrote:

Who you are exists outside of time and space, yet you insist on defining your 'self' as if you exist within 'time' and 'space'.

I have some very bad news to you: we are both eventually going to die (do you know that word, "eventually"?).

Dasein wrote:

If you glance back at all of your posts, you will see that it is 'you' (through languaging, speaking, writing,) that defines 'time' and 'space' and that your concepts of 'time' and 'space' don't define you.

In fact, it is both: we define things and our definitions change who we are. Just give it a shot!

Dasein wrote:

I periodically check your posts to determine if you have decided to remember who you are.

Try to periodically check them to rather determine if you can understand them---but please wait until you really want to (yet I suspect that since you are outside of time and space, that will be never).

1 Reply

@guigus,

I detect here two guys who, in their debating, are not trying to arrive at an understanding of what is the case but only to achieve victory over the other.
Self and "the other" are the central, and tacit, parameters of their situation.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I detect here two guys who, in their debating, are not trying to arrive at an understanding of what is the case but only to achieve victory over the other.
Self and "the other" are the central, and tacit, parameters of their situation.

Trying to win a debate does not exclude trying to get things understood. In fact, the former is the only way for the latter to materialize in a real debate, regarding at least one contender.

1 Reply

on the subject of nothing, even empty space can give rise to virtual particles which simply pop into existence, as a particle and an anti-particle, borrowing energy from the universe and rapidly disapearing

2 Replies

@shanemcd3,

...and that is precisely the reason why the so called "empty" space is not nothing nor truly empty...

...oh by the way you could have mentioned the importance of those so called virtual pairs of particles in the event horizon of black holes regarding the Hawkins radiation effect by which they evaporate from existence...
(of course leaving information elegantly behind)

0 Replies

@shanemcd3,

shanemcd3 wrote:

on the subject of nothing, even empty space can give rise to virtual particles which simply pop into existence, as a particle and an anti-particle, borrowing energy from the universe and rapidly disapearing

Nothing is totally empty (absolute nothingness) or totally full (absolute being). The question is: what is that we refer to as "nothing," which is either totally empty or totally full? Obviously, such a question does not belong in physics, but rather in philosophy, so it is useless to look for its answer in physics: neither absolute being nor absolute nothingness are physical entities---despite being demanded by them---hence they are both out of the scope of natural sciences.

0 Replies

Some idiots around think that you are more or less being do to density go figure that... Mr. Green

0 Replies

If physics can help explain something in philosophy then there is no reason not to use it, in fact i think this is where philosophy has often gone wrong, by trying to remain so pure. And yes, hawking radiation is an intriguing subject, perhaps the information is conserved, perhaps not in this universe, but in the multiverse, maybe it is ejected into a sister universe via a white hole. But back on the subject of nothing, what about beyond the universe, or is it even logical to ask this? Or before the big bang? Are there still quantum fluctuations? Or any laws? If not, how did they come to be? Eternity is an intriguing thought, but so too is something from nothing

2 Replies

@guigus,

I was not referring to all debate, to debate in the abstract; I was only referring to one particular event. Debates can be constructive attempts for contenders to grow from one another, as I said recently in another thread.

0 Replies

@shanemcd3,

i dont think you can answer these questions.
the universe is infinite, and always expanding. into what, No one knows.
there was literally no time before the big bang. idk about the other questions.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

Essentially that is correct. There are, I suspect, questions that have no answers. As such, they are pseudo-questions. Nevertheless, we have a right to ask them: they express our nature. It is my understanding that ULTIMATELY absolute Reality is beyond us. All our questions and even our "trusts" are relative to our (neurological) nature. Knowlege is a function of the knower. That is to say all knowledge is "human" knowledge. There are no brute facts "out there" independent of our paradigms (in Kuhn's sense of the term). All "facts" are little theories relative to paradigms, explicit or implicit. Perhaps another way to put it is that raw data is actually cooked data. But the cooking process is, as the more philosophically sophisticated among our natural science and social science communities, realize problematical. The explication of this reality is why I appreciate the 19th century philosopher, Fredrich Nietzsche.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Corrections:. I wrote "trusts" instead of "truths." And when I say that "absolute Reality is beyond us", I mean beyond our cognitive capacity, even though it IS US.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I wish you would explain to me what raw data would mean since the entire Universe, all phenomena are the result of functions ?
(hopefully you will understand the question)
Now the true question instead is, why is it less real if these data reports to functional relations ? why would that be the case ?
(Not between humans and things but between everything upon everything)

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

If one imagines an eternal circular loop chain of functional relations would the question "what is it" make any sense without always adding to the question at what level or in what layer such and such is ? And is that any less real ? Compared to what else ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

..."thingness" it is the result of an algorithm (a relational pattern) which reports to any other number of "things" which again report to another layer of algorithms...

...the thing about algorithms is that they report relative "perspectives" without being untrue...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...I could describe "space" for instance as a general algorithm about algorithms..."location" is part of what they are as functions, thus establishing the layer at witch they work or operate, at what systemic level the pattern works, and in it or through it, the "thingness" on what they inter relate with...and that is a good argument in favour of causality I guess...what other causal explanation "mechanic" could we have after all ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I was just wondering how many of the smart asses around are getting any of it... Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I must confess to difficulty understanding your use of "function". My math literacy is not up to it, just as your command of English proves to be dysfunctional for our efforts at communication.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I must confess to difficulty understanding your use of "function". My math literacy is not up to it, just as your command of English proves to be dysfunctional for our efforts at communication.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Proportionally speaking my command of English is the least of the problems in here JL...Oh and by the way, my knowledge of conventional maths is close to null...although of course I have a certain understanding upon some math like concepts that allow me to comprehend what you seem unable to...

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know