DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@guigus,

...you are completely right ! Nothing is the absence of something indeed... a relative measure of absence, that only has contextual meaning while there was something that is gone missing.
But funny enough that destroys entirely the pursuit of an absolute form for framing it in the way you initially intended...inverting the logic is case to ask, what would be of breaks without the music ?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...you are completely right ! Nothing is the absence of something indeed... a relative measure of absence, that only has contextual meaning while there was something that is gone missing.
But funny enough that destroys entirely the pursuit of an absolute form for framing it in the way you initially intended...inverting the logic is case to ask, what would be of breaks without the music ?

For your sentence, "nothing is the absence of something," to be true, the word "nothing" must mean "something." Otherwise, one is rather saying, "there is no absence of anything," which is obviously false.

To make that sentence true, I must rewrite it in this way:

Nothingness is the absence of something.

However, "nothingness," unlike "nothing," must rather mean "something."

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

guigus wrote:

For your sentence, "nothing is the absence of something," to be true, the word "nothing" must mean "something." Otherwise, one is rather saying, "there is no absence of anything," which is obviously false.

To make that sentence true, I must rewrite it in this way:

Nothingness is the absence of something.

Then, precisely for changing the meaning of your sentence, "nothing is the absence of something," just by replacing "nothing," the word "nothingness" must mean "something" instead of "nothing."

1 Reply

@guigus,

...you can ascribe whatever you want to a given word if you wish...for lack of better you can even project yourself in a false idea or a pseudo concept...but that wont make the damn word mean anything more then a confused mesh of intentions...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

This topic is a "confused mesh of intentions."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

From the very tittle...all the bigger reason to trying to clarify it...where is your contribution ? Do you have an opinion ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

"That" was my contribution. You guys are chasing rainbows.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

...the point being I was not chasing anything...there is nothing to chase in nothingness...or to put it more assertively I chased the illusion of clarifying that, but it seams Guigus is beyond hope...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...you can ascribe whatever you want to a given word if you wish...for lack of better you can even project yourself in a false idea or a pseudo concept...but that wont make the damn word mean anything more then a confused mesh of intentions...

The only way for the sentence "nothing is the absence of something" to not mean "there is no absence of something" is to "ascribe" the word "nothing" a different meaning than "the absence of something." Since I didn't do that, I am not "ascribing" arbitrary meanings to that word.

The proper sentence to express what was intended is rather "nothingness is the absence of something," because "nothingness" has a different (vernacular) meaning from "nothing."

1 Reply

@guigus,

David Albert has described nothingness as analagous to what would remain if the entire cosmos were to shrink (like a baloon) to the point of "nothing left". In this way he would avoid having an area of nothingness surrounded by somethingness. Buddhism seems to see nothingness (emptiness) as an aspect of everything: emptiness is form and form is emptiness--they are the same (here we even eliminate logic). Such variations.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

David Albert has described nothingness as analagous to what would remain if the entire cosmos were to shrink (like a baloon) to the point of "nothing left". In this way he would avoid having an area of nothingness surrounded by somethingness.

interesting but not nessecary

since , as I've said countless times

nothing is the exact opposite of something , no - space-dimension-movement -depth

Quote:

Buddhism seems to see nothingness (emptiness) as an aspect of everything: emptiness is form and form is emptiness--they are the same (here we even eliminate logic). Such variations.

the thing is , is that , it isn't true

sure you can get the mind to get to that state , empty the mind of all thoughts

but that doesn't reflect the Universe and the space between each object

chiral condensate

1 Reply

@north,

Do you understand the Buddhist's perspective on that matter?

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Do you understand the Buddhist's perspective on that matter?

from what I understand they empty their minds of all thoughts =emptyness or nothing

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Buddhist's "emptiness."

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

0 Replies

@north,

I would not say they become mindless, in the sense of blank or unconscious. They realize the emptiness of all phenomena, including that which we call consciousness or experience. But "emptiness" (sunyatta) is not like what we usually mean by nothingness. Rinzai Zen refers to it as "no-mind" (mu-shin), but that's very easy to misunderstand.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

David Albert has described nothingness as analagous to what would remain if the entire cosmos were to shrink (like a baloon) to the point of "nothing left". In this way he would avoid having an area of nothingness surrounded by somethingness. Buddhism seems to see nothingness (emptiness) as an aspect of everything: emptiness is form and form is emptiness--they are the same (here we even eliminate logic). Such variations.

The fact that "nothingness" is not exactly the same as just "nothing" has logical consequences. Try to follow them.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I think I see the difference: Nothingness is a metaphysical category while "nothing", as in "nothing leftl" is an empirical description of a hypothetical condition. You are suggesting that I should have said "nothing [rather than nothingness] surrounded by something [rather than somethingness]"?

0 Replies

@north,

By the way, when we empty our minds of thoughts, they become/remain "full" of other stuff...never empty. But one can see the "emptiness" of that stuff.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Hi...

How can you 'SAY' nothing? What on earth has buddhism got to do with this subject? And........ dead people have no thoughts, but this doesn't actually mean there is a vacant/empty space 'physically' in their now unhosted cranium.

As for other recent posts (not all), that now appear to be no more than a debate on how words and sentences should be phrased, rather than the subject at hand........ STOP please. Smile

"Nothing" cannot physically exist.
"Nothing" cannot ever physically exist.
"Nothing" never physically existed.

There has always been and will always be 'Something'.

Everthing is something ... therefore ... something is everything
You are something ... therefore " " "

Get it yet?
mark...

ps... wait till infinity and constant repetition are tossed into the equation...lol.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Indulging in that kind of magic reasoning or believing in the FSM isn't that much different...of course he is entitled to believe whatever he feels
like, and I respect that right...

2 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know