Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 07:47 pm
@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 ?
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 10:58 pm
@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
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:37 pm
@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."
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 04:43 am
@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...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 07:10 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
This topic is a "confused mesh of intentions."
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 05:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
From the very tittle...all the bigger reason to trying to clarify it...where is your contribution ? Do you have an opinion ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 08:50 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
"That" was my contribution. You guys are chasing rainbows.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 09:23 am
@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
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2012 09:25 am
@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."
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2012 10:19 am
@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.
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2012 03:05 pm
@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
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2012 03:56 pm
@north,
Do you understand the Buddhist's perspective on that matter?
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2012 04:08 pm
@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
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2012 04:32 pm
@JLNobody,
Buddhist's "emptiness."

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2012 10:09 pm
@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
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 07:05 pm
@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.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 10:39 pm
@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
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 10:47 pm
@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.
mark noble
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 11:39 pm
@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.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:49 am
@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...
 

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 0.04 seconds on 11/29/2020 at 02:15:45