DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Common guys you know what was meant...does it refer ? It does not...

I still believe that all the posts following the OP require the making of an assumption as to the meaning of the question. For details see my previous three (or was it four?) posts.

Of course the way Mark answered those posts clarifies what he thought he'd clearly stated in the OP (I presume).

Hiya Fil!

Does nothing exist? If "nothing" means "no thing," then "nothing exists" would mean "everything does not exist," by which all being (everything that exists) is nothing. But if nothing (no thing) does not exist, then everything exists, meaning either that:

1) Everything, including whatever does not exist, exists, by which all being (whatever exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist).

2) Everything that indeed exists exists, by which "everything" already means "everything that indeed exists," making it impossible for us to refer to nonexistent things. But unicorns are different from squared circles, in the sense that unicorns, unlike squared circles, are not impossible by definition. If we could not refer to both, then we wouldn't be able to refer to the difference between either one's nonexistence---which we can. So we can refer to nonexistent things, by which "everything exists" must mean that even whatever does not exist exists, by which all being (whatever indeed exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist).

So by meaning "no thing," the word "nothing" turns all being into nothing. However, to handle the concept of "nothing," we are already treating it as being something, namely, nothingness. And what is nothingness?



So "not any single being" is the same as "not every single being":



However, this means that:



Hence, either "nothing" turns all being into nothing or it means that any being is any other being, hence not itself, as thus nothing---by which all being is nothing.

physically NO

mathematically ( accounting originally ), yes

Do stupid questions exist?
Yes.

Can they be debated forever by those who don't realize that the question is nonsensical?
Apparently

Because "Does nothing exist?" is a yes or no question...
But answer what you will, it doesn't make any sense.

Acttualy what was meant was if it refers to anything...that was pretty much settled in the first initial posts...and what debate are you talking about? You must be joking...

The defining characteristic of ‘something’ is it exists. The defining characteristic of ‘nothing’ is it does not exist. If one makes ‘nothing’ have the defining characteristic that it exists then the term ‘nothing’ is redundant because it is equal to the term something i.e. it becomes synonymous to the term something. Nothing is just used to explain when something is missing e.g. I’ve spent all my money I have nothing left.

Both something and nothing are arbitrary linguist designations; one term depending on the other. They are dualistic opposites that have no reality independent of one another. They are limited concepts dependant on one another for their meaning and meaningless without their opposite. If you give them both the characteristic ‘existent’ then they no longer function as words or as concepts or they mean the same thing. Ultimately because they are dependant terms they have no true independent existence they only exist in dependence upon one another.

You think?

That is the difference in between the practical usage of the term and the supposed pretentious absolute meaning of the term...I refuse the latest interpretation...its meaningless.

What do you think?

Nothing does exist my friend
is like asking does air exist yah it does exist
remember that all things in this universe has came from nothing and
formed into some thing and made out a reason
the same thing with human
Nothing +something =reason
on and on and on ..........it has no end

Nothing does exist my friend
is like asking does air exist yah it does exist
remember the all thing in this universe has came from nothing and
formed into some thing and made out a reason
nothing is invisible/illusion space of creation

nothing exists.
but your reasons are all BS. you cant compare air to nothing. air is something. air therefore exists and is the absolute opposite of nothing. nothing exists in to way's. it's a defining term for existence, and it exists, as a complete vacuum outside the ever expanding bounds of the universe.

well the word implies that it is the absence of "thing"

It is such silly discussions that take away focus from discussing ideas that really matter. "Nothing" personal, just my input.

well, you can post "what really does matter." because something is "silly" doesnt mean you have to say it.

Well, either you are saying that the word "nothing" does not exist or that whatever it means, which is no thing at all, does not exist. Since the word obviously exists, let us concentrate whatever it means.

If no thing at all does not exist, then everything exists, meaning either that:

1) Everything, including whatever does not exist, exists, by which all being (whatever exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist).

2) Everything that indeed exists exists, by which "everything" already means "everything that indeed exists," making it impossible for us to even refer to nonexistent things. But unicorns are different from squared circles, in the sense that unicorns, unlike squared circles, are not necessarily nonexistent. So we can refer to nonexistent things, as being either contingent or necessary. And since we can refer to nonexistent things, "everything (we can refer to) exists" must mean that even those nonexistent things exist, hence that all being (whatever indeed exists) is the same as nothing (whatever does not exist), because they all exist.

Thus, there is no escape: by asserting that "The defining characteristic of ‘nothing’ is it does not exist" you are also asserting that being and nothingness are the same. The only way for you to believe otherwise is by taking the word "nothing" as whatever it refers to, then implicitly asserting that something (the word "nothing") does not (whatever it means) exist (this is what some people call the "practical use" of the word "nothing": this confusion between the word and its meaning). If you clearly distinguish between the word "nothing" and its meaning (no thing at all) and keep that clarity whenever uttering the sentence "nothing does not exist," then you realize you are saying either that the word "nothing" does not exist---which is absurd---or that nothing, not even what is necessarily nonexistent, does not exist.

guigus



your on the wrong track of reasoning here

nothing is about the absence of something

whereas , no-thing is a discussion about , a thing or things themselves

Yes, a discussion of the ontology of thing-ness. I asked some time ago if we could, in theory and practice, extract from a object all of its perceived properties--say an apple's roundness, redness, taste, nutritional components, etc. etc.--what would we have left. Surely not an "apple"; that would be the sum of its defining properties. Would the residuum be a minimal quality called thingness?

of course

it always has been

since nothing is nothing but nothing

meaning that nothing cannot change into another form

the only argument against this is to explain how nothing can change form , into a form that leads to a thing or something

for the paradox of this position is that , what was thought , understood , perceived , reasoned and logically nothing was actually something in the first place