Is nothing actually something?

[Creepy-]

I already made a post in here, but having read it again, it is quite vague and doesn't really answer the issue at hand.So here's attempt number two:

Existence is everything, and need not be explained or understood (and as far as I'm concerned, it may well be unable to be understood by beings such as man). That is all. The absence of something (which might be one definition of nothing) is nothing more than a human abstraction. Absence doesn't exist in reality, for reality is existence, and existence is everything.

In other words, the very reason this query exists is still because of the limitations of language. And the query itself is clearly nothing more than a semantics game. Look around at the responses in this thread.

[InvisibleJim]

No thing, is still a thing

It's the absence of a thing, hence: no thing, surely?

[Oaky]

Let's pretend to go beyond the absence of space which would be beyond existence. If we imagine an expanding universe we imagine an expanding space. If we imagine an expanding space we imagine the existence of time and since we cannot go beyond the speed of light we cannot go beyond existence. All we'd manage is distorting time and space. So is absolute nothing a thing? Well... that depends. Space is not within the confines of space. So the universe is not expanding into space. It is expanding on itself beneath nothingness or nonexistence. It can't be imagined because it's unfathomable to thought or experience. It is not a vacuum. It cannot go by any scientific laws. It cannot be experimented upon... but regarding it as an 'it' kind of makes it a hypothetical something so... existentially it is not a thing, but hypothetically we are defining it as something with the absence of all things.

[Absurd]

It is not a vacuum. It cannot go by any scientific laws. It cannot be experimented upon... but regarding it as an 'it' kind of makes it a hypothetical something so... existentially it is not a thing, but hypothetically we are defining it as something with the absence of all things.

Bingo, it's not a thing at all and it can't be derived from laws of physics as well. It has been done and ended in a fail. For fucks sake, it's entropy.

[Gilly]

Ontological conditions are directly responsible for framing the nature of the experiential and speculative, so it is useful to understand them in both the personal and the cosmic sense.

Agreed and I love the way you put this. Our personal ontology basically colors everything we experience.

And if the means can be found to achieve both at once then all the better. I am not familiar with Tolle but from reading his wiki-p list of influences it sounds like he speaks my language.

He does have some good things to say, was good for me to hear in a hard time in life. He's a bit new-agey for my taste now, but he has some fresh voicing of Buddhist-derived concepts if you are into that stuff.

[Gilly]

No thing, is still a thing

Only linguistically. When you think about the concrete implications, it becomes inherently self-contradicting.

[SyrupDeGem]

It's the absence of a thing, hence: no thing, surely?

Disagree

Only linguistically. When you think about the concrete implications, it becomes inherently self-contradicting.

Also conceptually and theoretically. To refer to something it has to exist, to refer to nothing it has to exist. Even to infer the non-existence automatically gives life to the idea of existence. But yes agreed, it is incredibly contradictory.

[InvisibleJim]

Null.



In some good news it is not possible to find nothing unless you go non-corporeal.

[SyrupDeGem]

Null.



In some good news it is not possible to find nothing unless you go non-corporeal.

And how exactly do you suppose you find nothing?

[InvisibleJim]

And how exactly do you suppose you find nothing?

Limbo - the non corpreal! I guess you could also take a vacuum and subject it to the inverse of all background radiation waveforms to find a corporeal true 'nothing' space.

[Korpsy Knievel]

In other words, the very reason this query exists is still because of the limitations of language. And the query itself is clearly nothing more than a semantics game. Look around at the responses in this thread.

That's because and that's why I put this question to the public.

He does have some good things to say, was good for me to hear in a hard time in life. He's a bit new-agey for my taste now, but he has some fresh voicing of Buddhist-derived concepts if you are into that stuff.

I'm guessing he'd fit among those exploring "the perennial philosophy" so whatever hoodoo he's laying down is likely to share common currents with a great deal of my recent reading in Eastern philosophy and esoterica, which sometimes enjoin the reader to intuitively jump out his or her own asshole to address problems that are too internally condtradictory to be solved through logic without reinventing the whole world around them.

[SyrupDeGem]

Limbo - the non corpreal! I guess you could also take a vacuum and subject it to the inverse of all background radiation waveforms to find a corporeal true 'nothing' space.

I always thought of limbo as a transitory state... a time between but nevertheless still existing. If you created a vacuous state or place would it not still be surrounded by other things, giving it definition if by only that alone. If 'it' can be defined does it not auto receive 'something' status?

[Pookie]

No thing is nothing. Nothing doesnt exist. Therefore, nothing is Nothing.

A horse is a horse is a horse.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Best part is you reject Christianity but accept Buddhism

Since I read Albert Speer's autobiography once, it follows by your soggy "reasoning" that I am now Reichsminister for armament and war production.

[Absurd]

Since I read Albert Speer's autobiography once, it follows by your soggy "reasoning" that I am now Reichsminister for armament and war production.

It only follows that you want others to think I do. Try it few more times and on different forums as well, somebody is going to pick up your rhetoric and sing to the same tune. Oh and I'm sure Speer is the new Tolle as far you are concerned. Hey, they even have the same names.

[Korpsy Knievel]

It only follows that you want others to think I do. Try it few more times and on different forums as well, somebody is going to pick up your rhetoric and sing to the same tune. Oh and I'm sure Speer is the new Tolle as far you are concerned. Hey, they even have the same names.

Keep fucking that chicken.

[Gilly]

Also conceptually and theoretically.

That's what I meant by linguistically: it only exists insofar as we refer to it or talk about, rather than having physical existence that truly embodies the term in its complete definition. There is not a "nothing" sitting out there somewhere; if it was, it would be nowhere, by definition, which means it wouldn't exist.

To refer to something it has to exist, to refer to nothing it has to exist.

Are you a Christian? Because this statement smacks of Anselm and Descartes and their logically futile attempts at ontological rationale for the existence of God.

Even to infer the non-existence automatically gives life to the idea of existence. But yes agreed, it is incredibly contradictory.

Yes, it gives it an existence as an idea; this is what I meant by "linguistically:" it only exists insofar as we attempt to communicate it conceptually. That does not mean that "a nothing" exists somewhere out there, because if it did, then it would be a thing, and, by definition, not a "nothing."

[rat1]

The conception of nothing is different than pure nothingness. Pure nothingness does not exist by definition, but probably does exist in an undefined realm beyond any conscious awareness. The conscious awareness of nothing does exist as not being able to see yourself / be aware of yourself..

[Gilly]

That's because and that's why I put this question to the public.



I'm guessing he'd fit among those exploring "the perennial philosophy" so whatever hoodoo he's laying down is likely to share common currents with a great deal of my recent reading in Eastern philosophy and esoterica, which sometimes enjoin the reader to intuitively jump out his or her own asshole to address problems that are too internally condtradictory to be solved through logic without reinventing the whole world around them.

<3 Huxley and yes, although he is a bit cheesier/less artful about it.

[717495]

to refer to nothing it has to exist.

Which is exactly why we cannot refer to nothing. We can always refer to its absence (which is quite easy and is exactly what all of us are doing.)

As a concept, 'nothing' can probably count as a thing in and of itself.

A concept can be called nothing, pass off as nothing, and no one would even notice because nothing's missing.

[SyrupDeGem]

Are you a Christian? Because this statement smacks of Anselm and Descartes and their logically futile attempts at ontological rationale for the existence of God.

Aha, no. Though I see what you are doing there. Intuitively you may have walked into something else though, i suppose i am agnostic.. so i believe in a 'something' and not a 'nothing' there too. Hmm... I'm mulling this over now... may come back to this.

[Absurd]

Keep fucking that chicken.

Keep assuming I do, that's what you do best.