»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Nothing
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Nothing |
|
|
Poeminister Senior Member
since 2000-02-26
Posts 1862Regina SK; Canada |
What's Nothing. Does it exist?? |
||
| © Copyright 2000 Kevin Rainbow - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ted Reynolds Member
since 1999-12-15
Posts 331 |
Just to start the ball rolling . . . If Nothing existed, I wouldn't. I do, therefore Nothing doesn't. Q.E.D. I stand open to rebuttal. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
emptiness...it contains nothing ~Wynter "The worst prison would be a closed heart". ...Pope John Paul II |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The answer is yes. What is the problem here? Brad |
||
|
Ted Reynolds Member
since 1999-12-15
Posts 331 |
Nothing is the problem, obviously. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Nothing is no problem, right? |
||
|
Ted Reynolds Member
since 1999-12-15
Posts 331 |
Well, yes, Brad, there is a bit of a problem. You glibly say "'Nothing' exists." But if it exists, it is NOT nothing, it's SOMEthing. The question remains, how can "nothing," which we pretty much define as not being anything, exist? I say "There is nothing in this bottle." I say "There is not anything in this bottle." I suggest the sentences mean the same thing, and that it is as meaningless to ask "Does 'nothing' exist" as to ask "does 'not anything" exist." Back next year to see if anybody bites. Have a Happy Everything. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ted: I fear you are drowning in semantics.  "Nothing" is a pronoun ... so the truly important question is what is the "thing" of which there is nothing? The absense of the "thing" is what nothing is (and, arguably, because it "is", it exists). For example:There is no question that vacuums exist. But a vacuum is best defined by what it lacks ... matter. By arguing "Nothing exists : : Nothing is something" I think you would have to say "Vacuums exist : : Vacuums are matter". Both statements are contradictory and rely on a similar false premise. In short, I think your definition of what exists is too narrow. Now that wasn't so hard, was it? Nothing to it, right?  Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 12-28-2000).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Actually, vacuums do not exist (unless you're talking about the kind my sister says I should use on the carpet once in a while). What we too often call the vacuum of outer space is actually teeming with matter, and even the artificial vacuums created in the laboratory are never perfectly devoid of matter. The best we can do is a near-vacuum. But, assuming we could create or find a perfect vacuum, completely empty of matter, it would still contain energy (else we could never find it). Oh, and Jim, my dictionary also gives a definition of "nothing" as a noun: Something that has no existence. But doesn't that definition include an oxymoron? If something has no existence, is it still a something? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: Splitting hairs a bit, are we? Yeah, I knew that even the most remote "vacuum" of space contains some gases and man-made vacuums still contain matter at the molecular level. And Ron ... you just committed the universal negative fallacy.  I can understand how "a nothing" (noun) could be understood as being somebody who isn't worth anything but in that case, the "nothing" (noun) exists but, according to someone's opinion, simply lacks value. I am not sure how you could use "nothing" as a noun in any other way. Regardless, I would dispute the notion that something (or nothing) has to be measurable in order to exist. I think language creates more problems with defining "nothing" than the concept of "nothing" (your dictionary definition as a case in point). Jim |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Nothing to add (oh my, is that a contradiction...?  ) just having a good chortle...K |
||
|
Sock Junior Member
since 2000-11-27
Posts 10Australia |
To me "nothing" is the word that society uses to describe emptiness: There is nothing in the glass. There is nothing in space. etc. But what society doesn't realise that there IS something in the glass (air) and in space (stars etc). Nothing lets us describe our perception of things and is used to generalise an image we have (an open space filled with invisible elements). Hey I'm probably wrong, and even though I like thinking about philosophies - I don't have any idea what I'm talking about. Thanks for the chat guys. |
||
|
Poeminister Senior Member
since 2000-02-26
Posts 1862Regina SK; Canada |
Sock--I think your right.. Only the appearance of "nothing" exists. There's no such thing as absolute nothingness, for there is always something everywhere. Thankyou for commenting. And welcome to Passions. [This message has been edited by Poeminister (edited 12-28-2000).] |
||
|
Poeminister Senior Member
since 2000-02-26
Posts 1862Regina SK; Canada |
Thank you guys for all your comments and thoughts about "nothing" [This message has been edited by Poeminister (edited 12-28-2000).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jim said: quote: I completely agree, which is why I made note of the seeming paradox in the definition I found. But I think it also helps to answer the question. "Nothing," in the sense it is typically used, does exist. If it didn't, frankly, we wouldn't need to have a word for it. When we try to define it as nonexistence, the definition no longer makes any sense. The underlying concept is one that has interested me for years, at least in the scientific sense. As I already noted, we know of no perfect vacuum, even at the molecular level. We've also never found nor created a temperature representing absolute zero, signifying a complete cessation of movement. It seems no matter where we look, no matter how closely we peer, there is always both matter/energy and movement of that matter/energy. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
So...am I to understand, that NOTHING is the absence of something, until it becomes recognized as an entity unto itself, thus becoming something? OW....this one HURT |
||
|
Sock Junior Member
since 2000-11-27
Posts 10Australia |
Hey I'm still recovering Des. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Just putting in my two cents, I think that nothing does exist, in that it is an expanse between somethings. It's sorta like Yin Yang. They are both in a balance. They both serve as eachother's point of reference. Nothing can't exist unless there is no something. Something can't exist unless there is no nothing. But I don't think there is any place in this universe in which there is absolute nothingness, because this universe is occupied[at least 0.0002% of it]by something. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
fractal007, Yeah, that's how I would define it. Nothing is, has to be, a relational concept, not an absolute concept (I'm not sure what 'absolute nothing' means anyway). Yet, no one here seems interested in the problems of 'something' as a concept. What is an absolute something? A quick definition of something is: "An undetermined or unspecified thing" There are other definitions but I think this is the one that is being used here. But what exactly is an undetermined, unspecified thing when thing itself is already specified as: "An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence." In order for a thing to exist, it must be specified by definition. Therefore something, unless the word is used relationally, contextually, doesn't exist, is impossible to use, because it's unspecified. Therefore, nothing and something both exist or don't exist. Actually, the 'or' should probably be changed to 'and' -- nothing and something both exist and don't exist depending on the context of the conversation. One more example of the problems of 'something': ex: There is something. "there is" is a relational idea. There really is no there there outside of a speaker's, observer's relation to it. Okay, but what about: I saw something. This one's even easier. If you saw something, you have already perceived a thing that is specified (it can be seen), right? Any 'something' has to be specified in order to be perceived. Any 'something' has to be specified in order for it to be thought. In this way, I just don't see the problem with nothing/something. They have to be used relationally or not at all. Even Absolute zero or absolute vacuums can only be conceived in relation to their negatives. Still, it is interesting to speculate on their possibility I was under the understanding that even the vacuum itself (the fabric of space/time) contains energy in itself). Thanks, Brad |
||
|
sexyILN Junior Member
since 2000-11-20
Posts 29 |
I have a headache. ...peace as a primary goal, is dangerous because it implies that you will sacrifice any principle for the sake of it.... Robert Kaplan |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
I think, then, that what we're dealing with is our conception of what nothing and something are. I'm sure that there's all sorts of technical words for people who are of various schools of thought about the definition of the two. I will present my idea on this subject: Let us take a model of the universe and wipe away all that exists in the universe. Here, I am assuming that the universe as we know it, as defined by the space in which everything we are aware of exists[except maybe for spiritual stuff. But whether or not there's spiritual stuff is not my concern here.] Now that the universe is occupied by nothing, we can therefore conclude that: 1> The existance of nothing precludes that there cannot be anything in the universe. 2> The universe itself if a thing. It is a thing which contains nothing. Therefore, we conclude that in the thing called the universe, there is nothing. However, containing nothing is something. We have a paradox. Now, let's add star Alpha. It is currently the only thing that exists in the universe. We conclude that: 1> THe existance of Alpha precludes that nothing can no longer exist in the universe. Now, we end up with the question, "What's outside the universe?" It's possible that the universe is "all there is". However, now we have the problem of black holes. Some claim that black holes rip the fabric of space time. What happens when you go thru a rip in the fabric of space time? Is there something "outside?" Or maybe absolute nothingness lies outside the fabric of space time. So, in my view, nothing can exist - if it happens to be the only thing within a given space or universe. But if there is something in the presence of nothing, then nothing ceases to exist. Of course this raises the idea that nothing cannot exist, because nothing is something. So, if what the hardcore existentialists say is true - namely that people have no lives after this one, then we will see what nothing is like after we die. |
||
|
Poeminister Senior Member
since 2000-02-26
Posts 1862Regina SK; Canada |
Fractal--"Expanse"-- i think is a good way to define it. An expanse of those somethings we can't perceive superficially/naturally/casually amidst those things that we can- that are conspicious and vivid that our senses can grasp at. In context of superficially it exists but in deeper penetration i think there's always somethings lurking, the all is perpetual somethings, i think... If i had the ability to make myself however big or small i wanted to be at any time I would be phasing certain things on one scale/capacity into 'nothings' in another and certain 'nothings' into somethings-things that i could grasp with my senses and perceive...I think all the universe's absolute relationships of matter and energy, even space itself, and that theres just dense cumulations and less dense cumulations, but no actual holes where exist no things at all. [This message has been edited by Poeminister (edited 01-01-2001).] |
||
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
To me nothing is to our own perception on saying that there's nothing there, to nothing as far as we can see. But in reailty there is always something there. Life has got to chnage, Nothing stays the same, Soon it will be time, For me to move on. |
||
|
Poeminister Senior Member
since 2000-02-26
Posts 1862Regina SK; Canada |
I agree. We often question how did the universe come into being...was it created? But I reckon the universe never had a beginning--a coming into being... It has always just been and will be forever.. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Wife to husband, "What's wrong, honey?" Husband, "Nothing." Smile...then, watch the transformation of "nothing" into "something".... I rest my case. And yes, just another weird take on life from serenity.... |
||
|
dreamer1 12 5 24 Member
since 2000-12-11
Posts 150crossing between |
But if "nothing" exists outside of the universe, the second a spaceship goes through a black hole, "something" exists outside of the universe. In my dictionary "nothing" is defined as "no thing, not anything at all" I would have to agree that whether or not nothing exists depends on the context it is used in. ....peace as a primary objective is dangerous because it implies that we would sacrifice anything for the sake of it.... Robert Kaplan |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"nothing" to me is an abstract term which really indicates the abscence of "something" which someone has identified. But it seems to me since it is an abstract term as such, you must play by the unwritten rules of common sense. . . The word existence is also an abstract term. Abstract terms cannot survive on their own. The abstract must be coupled with another idea. It has to be connected. For example, it is meaningless to talk about existence until you give it an object to work with. The BALL exists. CARS exist, etc... But you cannot just talk about existence without a partner. It just so happens that the abstract term "nothing" is not connected with the presence or existence of things but the absence of things. So it is meaningless to say that "nothing" exists, because we already pre-decided that it would signify non-existence or absence. Does nothing exist as a concept, as an idea in our minds? Yes of course. Does actual "nothingness" exist? Don't be foolish, by definition we already know nothingness refers to non-existence... So the only nothingness that exists is the concept in our minds. The real nothingness "if all other things are really absent" does the opposite, it ceases to exist... or rather everything else ceases to exist. If there were absolute nothingness ... absolutely nothing at all would exist including the concept of nothingness (because there has to be someone to perceive the utter absence of identified entities. No mind = No concept). Now I'm even more confused I think! But the closest thing to absolute nothingness that I can think of is before God created the universe. The bible says that "The Earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep". This language to me suggests nonentity and disorder in the physical order of things. But as some of you pointed out earlier, "something" has always existed. I believe the physical universe including the time/ space matrix as we know it had a beginning point, but before that, God and the spiritual world existed from eternity. So there was never really an absolute nothingness. Whew! I'm glad I sorted out such a grand metaphysical problem! But if you asked me how I did it, I'll just have to reply: "Ah, it was nothing." |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
When did nothing become absolute nothing? What does it mean to have an absolute something? Dreamer and Stephanapolous seem to me to be on the right track but I don't understand why everybody finds this difficult. No word in a language is positive in and of itself (a word can't stand outside a language). As a result, anything we think, anything we sense, can't stand by itself. We have these ideas, senses, whatever because of their relationship to other things. Absolutes will always get you into trouble. Brad |
||
|
Ted Reynolds Member
since 1999-12-15
Posts 331 |
Let's remember, Brad, that this thread started when Poeminister asked "What's Nothing. Does it exist??" You responded "The answer is yes. What is the problem here?" As I tried to point out back then, the problem was exactly what you now recognize . . . postulating an Absolute out of context. And as for Jim suggesting I was drowning in semantics. He started from the position "'Nothing' is a pronoun." But the question raised was "What's Nothing. Does it exist??" We were definitely questioning Nothing as an absolute noun, not a pronoun (and not a mere synonym for a vacuum.) Haven't had time to read the rest of the thread yet, but it's nice to be back. Cheers. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
I agree with Stephanos. God and all do inhabit the "spiritual realm." However, the existance of a spiritual realm does not preclude the existance of absolute nothing. Frankly, the spiritual realm is some other paralell abstract place which floats over the physical universe. It effects it in many ways. But it is NOT absolutely outside the universe. However, it is not detectable to our instruments, which is why many have decided that science has precluded the existance of a spiritual realm. Getting back on track, there may be a spiritual realm which exists, however, it does not preclude the existance of nothingness. I believe that the spiritual realm is our word for that region where God and all exist. They created the physical universe using some method or another. I don't really want to debate how that took place, because we all have our own beliefs, and such discussions usually end up being highly unproductive. That is, after all the insults about people being foolish enough to believe this or that have been hurled around the room. So, absolute nothingness is defined by the nonexistance of the physical realm. I think that without the current plain which the universe is on, something from the universe cannot exist. Just like how something from the hard drive on your computer cannot just appear on a table somewhere, because it must manifest itself through the electronics and all, that make up the HD. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ted, I'll concede you understood the question better than I did. But this question makes no sense to me as a result. By the same token though, you have to also say that Something doesn't exist. Brad |
||
|
Ted Reynolds Member
since 1999-12-15
Posts 331 |
Okay, Brad, agreed. SOMETHING doesn't exist. But I think you'll agree that an awful lot of "somethings" (without universalizing capital letters) DO exist? (Me being emphatically one . . .) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'll give you that. Brad |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Brad and Ted: I read somewhere that only 0.0001% of the known universe is actually occupied by something. SO a lot of the universe is really just empty space and "nothingness". I have a bit of a derrivative question for anyone who's interested: Do you think it's possible for there to be places in the universe in which the temperature is absolute zero? This is a notion which has been put forward by some scientists. I disagree with it because of the low level heat caused by entropy. But I wouldn't mind hearing the opinions of others on this. Thankyou for your attention. |
||
|
Ted Reynolds Member
since 1999-12-15
Posts 331 |
Dear Fracta1007 (007 for short?): My first take on your query. If the universe is an unbroken continuity throughout, then it would seem that, since there's heat in SOME places, and can't be LESS than zero anywhere, and the effect of heat (or particle motion) is to extend to an even uniformity . . . then logically there must be SOME miniscule degree of heat EVERYwhere. My second take. There's still a lot we don't know about the universe. If there's any condition or barrier, either on a large scale or locally, which completely DAMPS all motion, heat would not be able to pass beyond it. The same would apply if there hasn't yet been enough time for heat motion to reach any particular area of space (not possible by Big Bang theory, but I still have my doubts about that.) My third take. What about the incredibly small regions BETWEEN the smallest particles anywhere? The very CONCEPT of heat (i.e. particle motion) couldn't apply there. Interesting. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Ted, and everyone: Forgot to to my homework, lol. Some of you may be at my question on the universe. I just posed a question on dark matter with regards to the universe. Now we have a bit of a problem, because nobody is quite sure about just what dark matter is made of. So, we may need to take dark matter into account in this discussion. |
||
|
mark woolard Member
since 2001-01-02
Posts 143 |
something is something if anything is nothing still something it is it is wind will find voice as opposite nothing for nothing is nothing is everything nothing imagined is something that is. however we word it it's already read. before and foreafter is invisible something to say now is nothing is still saying something. So lovers of nothing are still loving something: the idea of a nothing is something that is. Does this answer the unanswer? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
