Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2014 09:19 pm
Nothingness is not zero, is not the null set, not a void, not empty space or pure vacuum even if there was one. Nothingness as is defined is not anything, be it abstract or concrete. Thus is logical to conclude that no properties of any sort can operate into nothingness. It is a complete mystery to me why is this so hard to get for most people. If you are referring to anything else you are not referring to nothingness. Zero for instance might be interpreted for practical purposes as the representation of perfect balance between opposing forces which it is obviously clearly distinct from nothingness.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2014 11:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
This thread has become rather dull because it has fallen into a circular set of arguments from both sides without any sort of debate on how we can go about the problem, the possible arrangement of understandings on how nothingness can be addressed that to my view can be resumed to 2 possible alternatives only.
Either nothingness as classically defined is the a priori absence of anything in which case its close to meaningless and is not of much use as I have illustrated previously, or, for those who want a more creative more surprising take on the matter, it can be argued that nothingness as a concept only has validity if seen as an operating function from everything, something which you derive in relation to everything else, from the act of negation itself. Nothingness as a negating active function is then something, a balance for transformation, for change. At this light we can now recon that for this kind of definition the concept of a null set can now be satisfactory. But the null set can only be considered valid as a function of any other set.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Jul, 2014 09:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I agree; without some agreement as to the definition and perception of words, the discussion is going to result in a merry-go-round.

Since you have provided your definition, it's up to the people who disagrees with your definition to provide their definition. Without settling the definition, any discussion is a round about.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2014 02:45 pm
I defined "nothing" early on...it is merely the absense of spacetime.
kiuku
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2014 03:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
many people do not, i haven't seen a clear example of someone explaining or talking about 'nothingness' or what to do with it as an idea if any

I however have supplied a short linguistic proof that nothingness, ex nihilo rather, as a concept began in 1900, after the big bang, and I've only seen paradoxes of thought since then of men trying to explain what they mean, by ex nihilo, though bright, I don't see how anyone expects a message board thread to surpass books. This message board would be making history if it came up with something to do with nothing.

I though fixed the pronunciation; that it should be Nile.

That's another point that it appears to be popular book material.

I don't know, the concept (of zero) exists in ancient cultures.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2014 03:52 pm
@kiuku,
The problem with your "ex nihilo" is the limited definition of "out of nothing" which can have many different concepts. It doesn't need to mean only about 'creation.' It can also mean something invented and brought into existence - that which never existed before. Just one hundred years ago, no one ever had any idea about three dimensional printers. That's a very good example of "something out of nothing." Long before then, the invention of aqueducts provided the transportation of water for long distances. They brought long term benefits for humans by their creation (something from nothing).

There's really no need nor benefit to restrict the meaning of words.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 09:29 am
@kiuku,
I will be cocky n state my own, even if vaguish, account on it surpasses the "books"/authority as far as I can tell...
(not that I am expecting it to be noticed)

1 - Nothingness with capital N is meaningless.
2 - nothingness look at as a function derived from when change is measured, when X is not X any more, is tangible.

...nothing in relation to what it was before is a better account on what the coinage is intended to mean.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 09:41 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...nothingness practically speaking, as negation of what it once was, is in the least one bit of information. You derive information from the process of change itself. So, when we speak of nothingness as a function on what changed for describing what isn't any more, we still produce information about it. When we state that X is not X any more, we are nonetheless producing something about X, information.

At this light the null set is an ideal never achieved, a progressive negation of a collection of things that exist ad infinitum.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 10:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
The fundamental feature of this sort of nothingness is that it points towards constant processing. In the listing, the negation of X, then, Y, then Z, etc etc is an infinite non stoppable process. If you stop processing you are immediately stuck with something. Practical nothingness, as negation, is a function that produces information itself need further denying. As far as we can tell information needs be embodied information. Thus the denial is always circumstantial and never definite. You deny X by producing Y...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 10:30 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
So far I provided a vision on the function of negating considering an infinite set.

If considering a finite set, the null set of negating all the elements of a set, which requires a loop, points to an interesting result that illustrates what I was conveying in my previous post. The processing of negation itself cannot itself ever be negated. In order to complete the set the process of change never stops. Even when a full finite set is negated one function remains unchanged along the way, that function is negation itself.
0 Replies
 
MWal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 10:44 am
@Ionus,
Space, and everything else.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 04:50 pm
So can we, absolutely, put to bed the non-existence of nothing?
I have - And, being that it is a fundamental base for the transition of reality (However perceived), commit closure thereupon.

Now, maybe, after 4 yrs, those inclined may venture into the consequences thereof?

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 05:02 pm
@mark noble,
If there is anyone left believing nothingness as classically defined means something they need a head check.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2014 05:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Agreed!
0 Replies
 
OnionPun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2014 10:43 am
@mark noble,
This is where our language begins to fumble, I think.

Nothing, as is the sense of the lack of something, exists in many ways, though in the most fundamental way, its definition implies it is not existing. Though this play on words is entertaining, the space between two somethings is nothing in the literal sense, but is something in the logical sense or in the sense of oneness.

If the universe is the existence of moving constants, then the space between those moving constants is nothing. If the universe is simply entirely nothing because for something to exist, so too must nothing exist, lest the concept of a something could never be.

Let's specify a more precise meaning of the word "Nothing".

In the sense that "Nothing" is the absence of something, then I think that there is a place where there are no somethings. So "Nothing" in this sense exists as the space between things.

In the sense that "Nothing" is the void of all things, to include concepts and existence, then I believe that it is a paradox and an infinite loop, immeasurably so.

In the first definition, this is a nothing that you can see and measure. It might be the space between planets, or the distance between atoms. This is a measurable nothing that is something. It is the something we call nothing.

In the second definition, nothing is paradoxical. Nothing, not even space, time, or reality resides here. This wouldn't be a place that anything could actually go, not because traveling there is too difficult, but because going there would innately undermine the condition of it being what it is. Though that doesn't disprove its existence. It would suffice to say that this nothing cannot truly be, because if it did, then it would no longer be. But by virtue of it not being, it is. And so this is a paradox.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2014 05:32 pm
"Nothing" is merely the absence of spacetime. So the nothing is acually something...where spacetimes does not exist.
Why is that so hard to undersatnd?

So what could possibly be the nothing that is actually something where there is no space time? I elect the quantum foam...where quite possibly our universe with space came from by way of a quntum fluctuation. I.E.; something from nothing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2014 05:43 pm
@OnionPun,
That's 'nothing' I worry about. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
room109
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2014 05:08 am
@giujohn,
be lonely and you will acheeive something
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2014 08:39 am
@OnionPun,
There is no space between 2 'somethings'. What are you talking about?
'Our' language (whatever that means) doesn't begin to fumble at any point - Your interpretation of transitional reality is alternate to mine, and you percieve from an alternate pov. "Nothing" does not, cannot nor ever will exist.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2014 08:41 am
@giujohn,
And - Where is this place that 'spacetime' does not exist?
"Nowhere", no doubt?
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 04:41:25