demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:31 pm
@JLNobody,
Yes, we can consider existence of everything as we consider eternity. This reveals much about our understanding.
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 02:42 am
@JLNobody,
Then we would have to deal with the problem or relativism within all forms of ideology. This would include spiritual understanding. But I do tend to lean to the practical metaphors of Buddhist philosophy and at the same time I understand it's purely conceptual.
0 Replies
 
shelved neurosis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 09:33 am
By the pauli exclusion principle, we can accurately posit that in between matter (on the smallest scale) there must be void. Metaphysical nihilism states that since we cannot distinguish between non-existence and existence because we do not -not- exist, we cannot say that we exist. So we must be in the middle of non-existence and existence right? Well, you either don't exist or you exist and by what I stated a second ago, we either don't exist... or we don't exist.


someone blow me out the water please.

-skrod
north
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 03:28 pm
@shelved neurosis,
shelved neurosis wrote:

By the pauli exclusion principle, we can accurately posit that in between matter (on the smallest scale) there must be void.


I disagree

there must be a electromagnetic field between the electron and the proton , hence the balance between attraction


Quote:
Metaphysical nihilism states that since we cannot distinguish between non-existence and existence because we do not -not- exist, we cannot say that we exist.


which is wrong


Quote:
So we must be in the middle of non-existence and existence right?


no , we are in the middle of form

from disorder and order



Quote:
Well, you either don't exist or you exist and by what I stated a second ago, we either don't exist... or we don't exist.


we exist of course , because the form exists


shelved neurosis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 06:36 am
@north,
Quote:
which is wrong


On metaphysical nihilism: "One way of interpreting such a statement would be: It is impossible to distinguish 'existence' from 'non-existence' as there are no objective qualities, and thus a reality, that one state could possess in order to discern between the two. If one cannot discern existence from its negation, then the concept of existence has no meaning; or in other words, does not 'exist' in any meaningful way."

Quote:


I disagree

there must be a electromagnetic field between the electron and the proton , hence the balance between attraction


If two electromagnetic fields overlap each other, does this not mean that they are occupying the same space, therefore negating the pauli exclusion principle? Maybe I'm using this wrong. On the SMALLEST scale though (how funny it is to emphasize the word smallest with capital letters, haha) in between the waves of an electromagnetic field, is there a void?

Quote:
we exist of course , because the form exists


How can you exist if you cannot discern existence from its negation (non-existence)? The concept of existence has no meaning because there are no objective qualities (and thus a reality) of non-existence and existence.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 08:20 am
@shelved neurosis,
Quote:
Well, you either don't exist or you exist and by what I stated a second ago, we either don't exist... or we don't exist.


You're not related to guigus, are you?
shelved neurosis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 09:15 am
@Cyracuz,
I joined this forum two days ago. No I'm not related to guigus... I don't even know who that is. I don't see how this is relevant though.
0 Replies
 
Jerry954878
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2012 12:17 am
@kennethamy,
I suppose the bigger question would be, does something exist.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 06:17 am
Hi folks....

All available space (everywhere) is occupied.
Unfortunately, philosophy does not deal with conclusions.
When it is accepted that 'NOTHING' does not exist, we may venture into the implications thereof and open the door to the questions everyone asks themself sometime during life........
This universe is not the be all an end all. It is merely relative to that/those who have the
ability to perceive only the parameters of the visible.

Have a moderately wonderful everything, everyone Smile
Mark...



north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 02:40 pm
@Jerry954878,
Jerry954878 wrote:

I suppose the bigger question would be, does something exist.


this is a bigger question ???? confusion continues to rein
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 02:46 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi folks....

All available space (everywhere) is occupied.
Unfortunately, philosophy does not deal with conclusions.
When it is accepted that 'NOTHING' does not exist, we may venture into the implications thereof and open the door to the questions everyone asks themself sometime during life........


Quote:
This universe is not the be all an end all.


it is though


Quote:
It is merely relative to that/those who have the
ability to perceive only the parameters of the visible.


and to those that , through instruments bring the invisable , to the visable

such as spectrograghs , what then ?

0 Replies
 
NoSuchThing
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2012 08:26 pm
@mark noble,
Yes. Nothingness by definition is existence. The universe and everything in it exists in a space-time continuum which, when looking from "Outside" is "Encapsulated" by Nothingness. Within this Encapsulation, separation of energy of matter causes everything you perceive around you (including your thoughts) to come into existence. But outside of this Encapsulation, there is no separation of energy of matter and therefore no existence, not even existence itself. A critical distinction must be made here is that such an existence of Nothingness can only be perceived from within the encapsulation, even though it is defined for outside of it.
0 Replies
 
Manss
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2012 04:38 am
@mark noble,
If nothing existed it wasn't noting
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2012 03:51 pm
@Manss,
Manss wrote:

If nothing existed it wasn't noting


absolutely
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2012 07:31 pm
Hi North.
I have no understanding as to why you chose to lift those quotes from my prior post.....Boredom, maybe?

Allow me to be more specific ~ RELATIVITY - That which is relative to that which it is related to. . . THAT which it is NOT related to is IRRELATIVE, and NOT IRRELEVANT.

The technology we use to 'make visible' that which would be, otherwise, beyond our scope of perception IS irrelevant, in as much as ~ Regardless as to what or how it performs, it simply extends our own mode of vision.

Anyway, it's late and I simply can't be arsed to further justify the bloody obvious. So you guys have a great time getting there. I'll pop back in the winter to see if there's any point to popping back at all.

Have a great everything!
Mark
0 Replies
 
deelosofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2012 07:14 am
We cannot sensibly say whether nothing exists, unless you mean to ask the obvious categorical question of whether (the concept) nothing exists.
Why is the question nonsensical?
Consider Krauss' new book A Universe from Nothing (or whatever it is). He argues from a 'nothing' defined as something - that is, it is not nothing in any strict sense at all. So if by 'Nothing(1)' you mean, as Krauss does, some observable something (quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, etc), then Nothing(1) exists.

However, if by nothing you mean Nothing(2), where any ontological, experiential qualities cannot sneak in, then nothing(2) cannot be shown to exist, or reasonably exist, a priori
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2012 06:15 pm
@deelosofer,
This is just semantics, nothing more nor less. You can defend anything successfuly as long as you re-define your terminology so that it reflects your Weltanschauung. Oldest -- and most tedious -- pedantic trick in the world. It's sophistry, that's all.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2012 06:24 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
...obviously right and Krauss simply goes one step back to hide is ignorant use of the term...Physicists would profit much with some philosophy classes but then I suspect half of them would not get to the end of the PHDs...
0 Replies
 
ikillyou
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2012 09:54 am
@mark noble,
how am i supposed to know?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 06:39 pm
@Manss,
Manss wrote:

If nothing existed it wasn't noting


The way you talk about "nothing" already makes "it" something. If you want to be self-consistent, then the beginning of your sentence, "if nothing existed," must rather mean "in the absence of everything," which interdicts the rest of that sentence, "it wouldn't be nothing," because now there is no "it" for you to refer to:

In the absence of everything, what could be something?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/01/2020 at 09:51:36