What is "nothing"

...the thing is, and I wish you honestly address this, no relation is ever possible without a grounded nature of each of the relating agents...how can something without defined identity relate in the first place ? Even the relation between 2 observing agents is no longer a relation if at a specific point in space/time their identity is not fixed...How can JLNobody relate with Cyracuz or Fresco if JLNobody is not JLNobody ? What is interacting if no what ?
The point is that no one is making a case against relations in favour of objects alone and further we could even make a case against the possibilitty of deep ground knowledge on how those relations actually do work, it wouldn't matter...what actually is being defended without concessions all along is the understanding that those relations must be born out of concrete, operating really functional objects, who are themselves the product of stable relations who again can be themselves the product of more objects..."objects" here are systems, collections of integrated functions that do work and do operate in the real world...the question of describing with certainty what they are is separate from whatever they are if in order to work...that is the point ! (and should be easy to get)

Distinguishing that whatever the agent in the modelling does it does it to perception and not to the WORLD is the point in contention...without it there is no agent, no observation, and nothing works altogether...no relations, no subjective perception, ultimately no **** going on...

What if they are grounded in each other? This is what I meant when I said that it is sometimes difficult to think in terms of the entire relationship because we are so accustomed to embodying one side of the relationship.

...if you mean that each part of reality contributes to make reality what reality is we agree I just don't think free willing agency has nothing to do with it...rather what we usually call free will, in my opinion wrongfully, is the consequence of such fact..which in turn means my imagination does not create reality although I am one of the building blocks in reality, or belong to the relational body of reality...

...I think imagination does not create anything from zero up but rather uses and combines mathematical formulas that congregate functions already present in the world to produce new objects...thus as I see it imagination is not a creator but rather an editor in reality....equally its modellings in the world however incomplete do capture some of this functions in a lower resolution mapping of whatever is happening...reason why of course things do work in a practical sense and we don't get kill as soon as we get out of bed...

...it follows necessary to clarify this editor we call imagination as I see it is a reacting complex system from where we assume agency in the willing it displays, but that in fact is merely computing accordingly with its body components...components themselves that stretch its interfacing through the outer world itself in a meta system of systems we obviously do not control...

...I guess what I am trying to say is that unless of course mind is seen as a closed system, mind is always body, always components...thus the expression "no mind never matter" makes a world of sense to me...

...in fact how can we locate the "I" anywhere, if whenever we reach for mind we always get stuck with components everywhere ?
...if all the images and processes we have, are "world" including the image of ourselves...
...selfness is itself always changing always mutating consequence of its openness to the world and to others...where is agency, and I mean true final Agency ? It emerges ? it is a function of the system ? a lifeless system where time itself is component ? where space is phenomena ? where is the unmoved mover ? and how can such thing be an "agent" when movement time and space itself are functions in a timeless actuality ?

But imagination does create reality, to a certain extent. I agree that stones won't fly just because we imagine they will, but stones are stones because we imagine they are... This is a difficult subject, I feel I am not making sense here. But it all depends on our ability to think in terms of the whole relationship, not just as one side of it. The one-sided approach is the materialistic approach that is sometimes called naive-realistic.

Oh but you are, Cyr. We see a certain reality in CostCo as well as Mother Love; but from the point of view of the utter skeptic either one is simply groups of animals moving physical objects from one place to another while uttering bursts of sound

Do you have anything against groups of animals ? or against uttering sounds or moving stuff ?...hell I am very happy with my life !

Yes, no, Fil, you misunderstand. I was agreeing with Cyr on the reality of the abstract

ooh...yes, yes...of course ! after all what is not real ?
(we might just as well get back into the OP)

I had thought mention of abstract v concrete and how there’s no clear distinction, Fil, might be pertinent to the OP if only peripherally

Thus a rock near one end and God near the other with CostCo and Mother Love somewhere between

...the thing is and that's my problem in the essential I don't see any difference between a rock and "God"...

God, as an abstraction, certainly doesn't seem an agent to me, but the reason of "agency"...and a " rock", as something concrete, doesn't make much of a material in my thinking either...that said, I can agree both are substantial and real...

No and yes in line with the general observation that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. However I’d still place a rock near one end and God near the other

As an apodictical existential pantheist I’d call a rock “something” and Her, “everything"

Hello,
New to the forum, not on the PC much but this kind of topic really interests me!
A discussion with a neighbor I was having resulted in this answer, he asked if I would kindly post it for him.

(He has much better grasp of it, though said it would be fine in my basic words)

So here goes my attempt.

The question is ... Not what is nothing, which is acheivable in under a day...
But what does beyond nothing lack, which must exist to generate an absence of this argument.

Nothing is equivalent to here+now x infinity at point zero relative mind and at point all minus secondary layer or cloak or shield or skin or base structure or vessel or container or exponential diversity loop with break point at emmision avenue to centrifugal re-input, bang expand close, ba-- exp-- cl--, b- e- c-, I was born of fire too Satan!.

Cooling factors of eternal silence limit the potential for nothing to have base point 'center'. All things happen at one instant, BANG!.

The outside of this thing which is all, is itself excepting for the variations of collected materials difference causing a feedback loop, there has been a convergence of all known thought which gathered to solely awaken.

A human mind is born the same way.. all known external factors gather to build that which is knowledge, that which is accustomed to its previous.

Hmm, perhaps it is ultimately multi dimensional then, the universe was created by initial contact points at random times during nothings existence, by other universes, which will never meet this one again. The magnitudes are too vast for fields to allow no curve.

So outside this universe there is a nothing which is separated by a large straight line and a large curve from any other universe.. Meaning no light could ever reach us, since light travels in one direction and the curvature draws energy into the field at zero point.

So it appears to me that light then bends into destruction of high energy output>low energy phasic spread, spectrum. There is a rainbow invisible at the edge of the universe.

If that makes slight sense to you, do not worry it takes some effort, but it is one coherent thought string.

I hope I have been of some assistance to my neighbor and perhaps some of you!

Thank you, for your time.

And I was certain Deja vu had been put to rest...

Oh, What exactly do you mean by that?
I have not read this anywhere.

It is not even listed as a fact in this thread that nothing as a placeholder inclusive of spacial distance, exists.

Anyway, one of the more interesting 20 minutes of my life, you miserable twerp.

Sorry for saying that, I just went back through (I only briefly scanned for similar before) and it has been mentioned, i missed it.

It has to exist or infinity cannot be the flow of material, thus the universe cannot expand or grow in a multiverse, and it only contains what it is as a singular, which is impossible unless infinity is material and energy and nothing has distance. Do you get distracted? .. I do.

I was referring to the thread Dav - there now appear to be an abundance of 'Nothing' threads, each, along with my own, just going over the same old ground:(

If I had been referring to your post, I would have done so by replying directly to you, as with this post.

I fully understand the reason for your derogatory remarks and have duly dismissed such:)

No, not distracted:) My conclusions are fixed.
Imagine a droplet of water moving through an ocean of droplets - It is a universe unto itself, yet seperating it from other droplets is not 'nothing'.

Yes understood, thank you...
Nice line..

Have you tried..
Imagine the coldest void in existence engulfs only you and its cooling removes all pain, for the first time you are free.

Generally only required in very bad situations, so possibly not.. never mind.