DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@north,

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

Quote:
Why aren't you guys capable of thinking about what you say? Just think about what you just said, that "nothing cannot exist," which means that "everything can exist."

not really

I was using something as the corner stone as to explaining nothing

That's why you will miserably fail: nothing is not something, so the sentence "nothing does not exist" means that "no thing does not exist" (every thing exists).

not to me

something is the total and complete opposite of nothing

something has substance , dimensions

nothing has no dimensions , therefore no substance

So to you the meaning of "nothing" is not "no thing"? Unfortunately to you, not no thing means precisely something (by double negation), then precisely the opposite of what "nothing" means.

(By simply reading your sentence "nothing has no dimensions" properly---with "nothing" meaning no thing---you will realize that what you are actually saying is that no thing has no dimensions, hence that everything has dimensions, including whatever does not have them.)

On the other hand, by referring to nothing as a being (that has no dimensions), you are presupposing the opposite of what you assert, namely, that nothing (as a being) has no dimensions---by ascribing a dimension to it.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

something is the total and complete opposite of nothing

something has substance , dimensions

nothing has no dimensions , therefore no substance

If "something is the total and complete opposite of nothing," then nothing is not a being. Therefore, we cannot refer to nothing as a being. But then the sentence "something is the total and complete opposite of nothing" actually means that "something has no total and complete opposite" (something is the total and complete opposite of no being).

2 Replies

@guigus,

north wrote:

something is the total and complete opposite of nothing

something has substance , dimensions

nothing has no dimensions , therefore no substance

Quote:

If "something is the total and complete opposite of nothing," then nothing is not a being.

yes

but when you say " being " it always refers to life to me , rather than something that is non-living , which it seems you equate " being " to

Quote:

Therefore, we cannot refer to nothing as a being.

absolutely

Quote:

But then the sentence "something is the total and complete opposite of nothing" actually means that "something has no total and complete opposite" (something is the total and complete opposite of no being).

something does has a total and complete opposite , but ONLY in sematics ans retertic

but physically , manifestly and/or in quality your right

now you you seem to understand what I'm getting at

0 Replies

@mark noble,

So, I believe the answer is inside these brackets ( ) There is no way to describe it in full capacity. Any word spoken of or about nothing may only shed light on a theme.

1 Reply

@guigus,

North notes that "nothing has no dimensions." That may be problematical: What about the empty space within a seashell? That "emptiness" would seem to have a configuration--that of the interior of the shell (which is probably why the ancient Mesoamericans used the figure of a seashell as a symbol for the concept of zero). But if you destroy the enclosing shell, the empty space within it loses its shape and it becomes--like a drop of water in the ocean--formless. It loses its "form" but REMAINS THE SAME "EMPTY" SPACE. It is in this sense perhaps that the Buddhists equate (in the Heart Sutra) form and emptiness.
"Form is (exactly) emptiness. Emptiness is (exactly form."

2 Replies

@TheoryJester,

TheoryJester wrote:

So, I believe the answer is inside these brackets ( ) There is no way to describe it in full capacity. Any word spoken of or about nothing may only shed light on a theme.

The answer is that being and nothingness are the same, despite opposing each other.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

North notes that "nothing has no dimensions." That may be problematical: What about the empty space within a seashell? That "emptiness" would seem to have a configuration--that of the interior of the shell (which is probably why the ancient Mesoamericans used the figure of a seashell as a symbol for the concept of zero). But if you destroy the enclosing shell, the empty space within it loses its shape and it becomes--like a drop of water in the ocean--formless. It loses its "form" but REMAINS THE SAME "EMPTY" SPACE. It is in this sense perhaps that the Buddhists equate (in the Heart Sutra) form and emptiness.
"Form is (exactly) emptiness. Emptiness is (exactly form."

Which is a beautiful way of saying that being (form) and nothingness (emptiness) are the same.

0 Replies

Form is contrast not emptiness...
(...the way it goes this forum is past the point of being retrievable...)

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

North notes that "nothing has no dimensions." That may be problematical: What about the empty space within a seashell? That "emptiness" would seem to have a configuration--that of the interior of the shell (which is probably why the ancient Mesoamericans used the figure of a seashell as a symbol for the concept of zero). But if you destroy the enclosing shell, the empty space within it loses its shape and it becomes--like a drop of water in the ocean--formless. It loses its "form" but REMAINS THE SAME "EMPTY" SPACE. It is in this sense perhaps that the Buddhists equate (in the Heart Sutra) form and emptiness.
"Form is (exactly) emptiness. Emptiness is (exactly form."

you misunderstand

my point is that nothing cannot fill this emptiness , with something , inandof itself

inotherwords nothing has no micro-macro substance in which to fill any space at , all , ever

nothing by its self cannot change its dimensions , nothing is nothing , dimensionless for infinity

1 Reply

@north,

...is even less then that...its a non word...you cannot even speak of it.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...is even less then that...its a non word...you cannot even speak of it.

accounting does though , practably speaking

otherwise in the bigger picture , the Universe , agreed

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Form is contrast not emptiness...
(...the way it goes this forum is past the point of being retrievable...)

Contrast between what and what else?

(Just trying to retrieve some thinking...)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...is even less then that...its a non word...you cannot even speak of it.

Then stop doing that.

0 Replies

Back to the topic.

To answer the question of this thread, we must first remember what "nothing" means: not a thing. Then we will see that "nothing exists" means that not a thing exists, which is false. On the other hand, that not a thing does not exist (everything exists) is also false, because there are nonexistent things, which are the reason for the word "nothing" in the first place: nothingness is precisely the negation of being---what exists is a being, and what does not exist is nothing.

So nothingness exists: it is the negation of being, but irreducible to an intellectual act, since it exists in the sense of something that contradicts being. Why? Because it is about something objective, like an absence is objective: it is not an intellectual decision of mine that someone is absent---it is an objective reality (and if it is not, then that person is not absent). That's why nothingness cannot be just a concept (although it is also that).

Put another way: how do I know if the sentence "that thing does not exist" is true? By verifying if "that thing" objectively does not exist, that is, if it is objectively nothing.

Nothingness is a concept just like being: both must be objective to be true (or even meaningful).

0 Replies

@guigus,

Can you please describe in what setting would something and nothing both exist together, I do understand this concept yet nothings main objective is to be nothing at all. How can it exist ?

2 Replies

@TheoryJester,

Everything is constant process. It's "being" is really "becoming." As such, everything both exists and does not exist at the same time. Of course the simultaneous ascription of the words, existence and non-existence, is contradictory, but not the reality of their ephemeral nature.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Everything is constant process. It's "being" is really "becoming." As such, everything both exists and does not exist at the same time. Of course the simultaneous ascription of the words, existence and non-existence, is contradictory, but not the reality of their ephemeral nature.

the thing is JLNobody , if nothing becomes something means and implies that nothing was something in the first place

that is your conundrum

1 Reply

@north,

No, that's YOUR conundrum, not mine. Maybe it should be mine but it's not. "Becoming" does not entail becoming something from something else; it means that--despite the structure imposed by language--there is always a flowing from one empty/changing/becoming-condition to another--which is possibly why the pre-Socratics tended to describe basic-reality with the metaphors fire and water. The Hindus liked the god-metaphors of Brahman (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver) and Shiva (the destroyer). Creation is necessary in the first place for reality to exist but it is always changing (Shiva) from some status (Vishnu 1) to another (Vishnu2). Buddhists describe Reality as ultimately empty (Sunyata). Language makes our dynamic world look static, even when it changes (from one static condition 1 to another 2). I see Vishnu and Shiva as one with Brahman; they are His essential traits: impermance or change (The Heart Sutra puts it: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; they are the same).

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

No, that's YOUR conundrum, not mine. Maybe it should be mine but it's not. "Becoming" does not entail becoming something from something else; it means that--despite the structure imposed by language--there is always a flowing from one empty/changing/becoming-condition to another--which is possibly why the pre-Socratics tended to describe basic-reality with the metaphors fire and water. The Hindus liked the god-metaphors of Brahman (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver) and Shiva (the destroyer). Creation is necessary in the first place for reality to exist but it is always changing (Shiva) from some status (Vishnu 1) to another (Vishnu2). Buddhists describe Reality as ultimately empty (Sunyata). Language makes our dynamic world look static, even when it changes (from one static condition 1 to another 2). I see Vishnu and Shiva as one with Brahman; they are His essential traits: impermance or change (The Heart Sutra puts it: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; they are the same).

but you cannot get something from nothing JLNobody

all the religions that you mentioned are of something us

so its ironic that they all suggest reality is empty

they are confused about reality and what allows them to here in the first place

that reality is not empty , is it , really

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

but you cannot get something from nothing JLNobody

not so. the absence of information is information in itself.

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know