Can nothing not exist?

[SamBridge]

 

at the smallest scales that we can measure, nothing physically exists.

If that were true we wouldn't be measuring anything on a smaller scale.

 

i would call upon the strangeness of quantum mechanics to try to find a reasonable solution.

QM provides no such solution.

 

perhaps nothing is something yet is nothing at the same time. can we measure this phenomenon?

 

Nope.

 

 

when it all boils down, it is proof that our perceptions are a result of insanity.

I can't think of any credible psychologist that would agree with such a thing.

Edited May 2, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

turn that literal engine!

you should have read my earlier responses.

this is a lingual problem.

 

Edited May 2, 2014 by davidivad

[SamBridge]

turn that literal engine!

You know science is not metaphysics right?

 

 

you should have read my earlier responses.

You should have read about QM before saying its some philosophy.

 

 

this is a lingual problem.

No it's a physical problem where we can physically confirm we have not measured the existence of nothingness. Even if nothingness somehow exists there's no way to measure it.

Edited May 2, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

it is a fun topic to debate no?

let me create another paradox.

what happens if pinochio says my nose grows now.

one has to take a step back and look at the big picture.

go ahead and have fun.

you will have solved world hunger, not realized it, and still not come up with an answer to nothing that satisfies everyone.

it is literally an answer to nothing that you are looking for.

lol...

while it is imparative that one can argue a point, it is even more important to use higher reasoning to decide whether or not it is worth your time.

hmm...

yet i cannot shake the feeling that quantum mechanics is our best bet at answering the PARADOX.

" i did not say that quantum mechanics is philosophy." as spoken with overt enunciation...

groove on brother.

[SamBridge]

it is a fun topic to debate no?

let me create another paradox.

what happens if pinochio says my nose grows now.

one has to take a step back and look at the big picture.

go ahead and have fun.

No one has to do anything, Pinocchio isn't even real and thus didn't say anything about your nose growing.

 

 

you will have solved world hunger, not realized it, and still not come up with an answer to nothing that satisfies everyone.

It doesn't matter what emotional attachment people have to it, forgoing reasoning is not the way to find an answer.

 

 

while it is imparative that one can argue a point, it is even more important to use higher reasoning to decide whether or not it is worth your time.

hmm...

Being worth time is an arbitrary emotional measure and has nothing to do with the logic of the situation. If you don't want to spend time using logical reasoning to find an answer, no one's forcing you to.

 

 

yet i cannot shake the feeling that quantum mechanics is our best bet at answering the PARADOX.

It's not a paradox and QM doesn't address it. I think your nose might have grown a bit.

Edited May 2, 2014 by SamBridge

[Greg H.]

I, for one, have completely lost track of the point davidivad is trying to make.

[davidivad]

yep...

 

 

No one has to do anything, Pinocchio isn't even real and thus didn't say anything about your nose growing.

 

It doesn't matter what emotional attachment people have to it, forgoing reasoning is not the way to find an answer.

 

Being worth time is an arbitrary emotional measure and has nothing to do with the logic of the situation. If you don't want to spend time using logical reasoning to find an answer, no one's forcing you to.

 

It's not a paradox and QM doesn't address it. I think your nose might have grown a bit.

 

here is a website that may spark your interest. yes, this topic has come up time and time again.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=166694

have fun...

[Moontanman]

How can there be nothing when the universe is everything?

[SamBridge]

yep...

 

here is a website that may spark your interest. yes, this topic has come up time and time again.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=166694

have fun...

I can't have fun because I already have the answer. Nothingness has no dimensional, directional or scalar quantity and therefore cannot physically exist. If an apple has no size, no probability of being anywhere, no force, then it doesn't actually exist and I find that I'm actually holding my hand around a region of air and the apple was all in my imagination.

Edited May 2, 2014 by SamBridge

[hoola]

but nothingness (void) was not an apple.....it is a rare commodity now however, having evolved into us..."the extinction of nothingness"...through an interesting mechanism...to somethingness. The void had one very specific and unusual property, that it was ONE void. That is the only label that can be attached to "it" (concept of oneness), but that was the primary bit of information that became the froth of the (hot) chaos, (since there was no logic yet to control it) which developed a random region (cool spot) of logic, which evolved resilient math structures within this region of chaos, allowing the newly stable original bit an interval to develop into the IBH (informational black hole), and reality is determined by that informational content that follows the precepts of that basic, fully formed logic. The information that does not adhere to logic is still in the IBH, and to varying extents influences reality, through quantum effects most notably, and more obscurely through sentient thought processes (you can imagine totally illogical happenings)...in this scenario, all you need to generate a universe or universes is a "true void" or complete nothingness, and nothingness not only exists, but must have once existed unless you believe in some sort of steady state or religious origin...the trick is to offer some sort of mechanism to allow something to evolve from nothing, once you grant that indeed, nothing could have once existed...and you presume some sort of deity didn't happen to get involved. It seems interesting to me that a human "concept of oneness" with and within our universe seems to be a major root of human philosophy, as my system requires it as the original bit...

Edited May 13, 2014 by hoola

[Burning Ghost]

All concepts exist. Even concepts of "nothing".

[Dekan]

But is that true? Surely "nothing" means there is isn't anything there, so how can it exist?

[Burning Ghost]

But is that true? Surely "nothing" means there is isn't anything there, so how can it exist?

 

There isn't anything "where"? You are still using spacial/temporal base to talk about something that you cannot imagine using those things. A "pure nothing" can never be adumbrated with any kind of solidity. To even start using terms like "pure nothing" shows the fault with the idea.

 

You have a concept of nothing. It exists otherwise this entire topic would never exist.

 

What does not exist is simply beyond any possible sensibility. The term existence itself exists only as a faculty of our represention of reality as a causal whole.

[davidivad]

would it be fair to say that something is better than nothing?

better yet isn't it nice that we have a word that describes nothing.

can nothing not exist=word salad

this is better than a laser pointer and a cat.

[hoola]

it seems probable that mathematics will not be able to easily describe things that came before mathematics, and if all the information to describe this universe lies within it (the maths), it seems likely it contains scant information as to how math came to be. The inability to "measure" nothingness is a prime example..... however, if someone were to develop some sort of data compression software and run PI through it, maybe some basic elements of it's construction could be accessed and inferences could be drawn as to the underlying logic structures and how they fit together...as translated into formal mathematics....therefore easily describable...

[Quadrivium]

If you don't get caught up in human interpretation through linguistic semantics and remember you're asking about actual states of reality I think you can perform a thought experiment to understand this definitively and clearly.

 

Ask yourself, “Am I something?” The answer is, “Yes.”

 

Everyone is some sort of occurrence. It’s not a trick question, it’s an easy one. The mere fact that we have observed something of occurrence negates any rational possibility of an actual real absolute nothingness… absolutely. For if ever there was something, there would be at least that something to relate to. This is a paradox because in the case of absolute nothingness, its function is absolute absence. And through our self-aware expression we can interpret a real nothingness born from the absolute absence of absolute absence; not merely a linguistic mishap in our minds, but an instensional paradox of true reality.

 

It was expressed in the conclusion of a 2007 paper titled, ‘Paradoxes of Intensionality’ by University of Michigan’s’ Dustin Tucker and Richmond H. Thomason, that “In the absence, however of a ramification revival or some alternative that has not occurred to us, we are not left with a comfortable strategy for dealing with the logical and set-theoretical paradoxes, particularly if we want a strategy that is supported by a rationale that makes it seem general as well as plausible.”

 

People don't tend to easily accept logic of paradox as natural probably because it is unsettling to define, instead we tend to accept understanding the problems of finite measurement as undefinable or irrational. We use potential wells to understand quantum fields, but refuse to apply potential wells to existence as a whole. I'd propose it plausible to discover a finite mechanism that can predict relative coherence from infinite solution.

[Ten oz]

Because this thread is in General Philosophy and not Physics I assume the question as asked isnt seeking a mathematical answer. That and I am not smart enough to create one. Lol

Can nothing not exist? What was a car before it was invented? The material existed but a car did not. The idea and technology for a car did not. Before an idea, thought, feeling, or etc is had they are nothing. Of course an idea doesn't come from nothing. It comes from a mind which is clearly something. Minds come from births, which comes from cell replication, and that all started when life began. Before earth had life was life nothing? Of course life too like an idea came from something....molecules, which came from elements, which themselves came from stars......blah, blah, blah.....big bang. To know if nothing can, has, or ever will exist we must first understand how anything exists. What was the state of all things prior to a dense point?

Good dicussion but sadly I claim to have a provable answer.

[Avalanche2001]

Introduction

Nothing is the absence of something, yet it is something. It is a contradictory idea. It defines itself as the opposite of what it's form I, but not of its definition. Therefore it is not oxymoronic, only paradoxical. One cannot say that nothing is nothing, even though that is its definition, because it is still something; it is a concept. Saying that nothing is nothing would be like saying that the sky is the sky, or the ocean the ocean; it is non- definitive and redundant. Nothing is the absence of something, but is not nothing.

If one was asked to explain why one imaginary object of one quality was better than another with different characteristics, it would be impossible physically because there is no physical object to compare an imaginary or sometimes hypothetical object to. It is same case with nothing, not, though, because of the absence of physical objects to compare it to, but because of the sheer number of physical objects to compare it to. The word something, (which we would compare the word nothing to) can literally mean anything. Therefore there is no specific thing with which we can compare the absence of things. This means that nothing has an infinite amount of antonyms, creating an infinitely negative paradox.

If the opposite of an object or idea were to be used with that object or idea, it would result in no reaction, except in cases where the opposite did cause a reaction. Typically, non- reactive opposite forms are sequences, such as moving, or completing an action. Others can include description and ideals. This being Said, it is not the case for 'nothing'. 'Nothing' is only one negative with an infinite amount of positives, which creates the mathematical phrase [m-n+(i-n)]. The m represents the number of things that 'nothing' is contradicting. The n represents the total absence of things. The i represents the infinite, or total amount of things being referred to. This mathematical phrase defines the total amount of things which the word nothing is contradicting, minus the total absence of objects which are actually absent, plus the infinite amount of positive contradictions, minus n.

One may ask how a double positive is possible in this case. The answer is that you can have a singular connecter to more than one thing- i.e. a set of blocks, of a pair of cars. Thus when exercising the mathematical phrase, one would end up with a very small and very large number being subtracted from infinity simultaneously. This is an example of quantum theory at work. This happens because although infinity is only one negative, it contradicts an infinite amount of things, including itself. Therefore it is infinity minus itself, but also minus one minus negative zero, the negative being 'nothing's self contradiction. This makes the phrase impossible to solve because of its imaginary numbers and self contradiction. Thus we see that nothing turns things into impossibilities and possibilities at the same time, creating an infinite amount, and a negatively nil amount of paradoxes.

Although we see that nothing creates quantum paradoxes, that does not define nothing. It is not a concept which creates quantum paradoxes. It has no definition- it is nothing at all, so even saying that it was unknown would not suffice.

 

The applications of nothing

Nothing has no applications, yet an infinite amount. After the brief description of nothing which has just been read, one can grasp, fundamentally, that the applications of nothing are all both paradoxical and oxymoronic. Take, for instance, the singularity of a black hole, where it's mass is both infinite and zero or below. Technically, negative zero is below zero, therefore the singularity of a back hole is nothing. Another example is sight. The only reason you can see is because of light, and light takes about five seconds to travel to earth. Therefore you are seeing zero of the present. But you are also seeing your present, in which there it an infinite amount of light. Therefore this creates imaginary numbers, infinity and negative zero, or just zero itself. So you see nothing. Although this is true, you are not blind. This is because nothing is nothing, so nothing is nothing therefore it does not affect you.

According to Parmenides nothing cannot exist because to speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing which exists. Furthermore he adds that change does not exist by saying that by the logic that nothing does not exist, since things of the past can be spoken of, they must still exist. Which means there is no change. This is synthetic with the quantum theory, which states that everything happens and does not at the same time, which, if compared with the introduction, is seen to be a non- reactive opposition, and therefore nothing. Said Aristotle of Parmenides's reasoning: "Although these opinions seem to follow logically Ina dialectical discussion, to believe them seems to be next door to madness when one considered the facts." This is because, while Parmenides simply attempts to reason off of pure logic, Aristotle examines the facts. His theory was that some things are matter, and some are space, and space is not 'nothing'- it is a receptacle into which matter can be placed. This is the accepted theory. According to GWF Hegel, since, in this case, the thesis is that everything is pure being, and the antithesis is that everything is nothing, the synthesis, or solution, is that everything is becoming. Logically, since it is always coming, it will never be here, so nothing will ever change. Therefore, this matches Aristotle's theory, which opposes logic, which creates nothin, therefore Hegel's is also a paradox, which means that his description of nothing technically is nothing. If nothing is exactly equal to nothing, and nothing means nothing, than the opposite of his synthesis is the perfect description of nothing.

So the best description of nothing is that it is not becoming- will never come, will never arrive. Nothing does not exist. Through viewing the applications of nothing, it can be proven that nothing does not exist. But this logic must be reinforced.

 

Nothing does not exist

The title of this passage states that -1\=\+1 and that 0=0. So it defines itself. The best proof that something is itself is the undeniable fact that it is simply not something else, and not nothing. If nothing is not something else and not nothing, it must be invalid. But it is not. Nothing is complete isolation. Nothing can be used to completely describe it. This matches the previous description,which says that nothing is never coming and will never arrive, therefore it is isolation in the isolation in the most desolate form attached only to a concept, but with no opposing force. As already proven , this amount of isolation cannot have an opposite, so it cannot exist.

 

Nothing

Since nothing can be used to describe everything, and when it does it creates a paradox, and when it creates a paradox, the paradox becomes suddenly never coming and never arrived, everything is nothing. Life is nothing. And since nothing is only a concept, life is only a concept, and everything else.

 

 

The correct philosophy

This proves that pure idealism is the correct concept, since nothing is everything, and everything is a concept. In pure idealism things exist because the concept must exist. Therefore nothing must exist, so every concept must exist.

 

The thesis, antithesis, and synthesis

Thesis

My thesis is that everything is nothing, and that nothing is a concept, therefore everything is a concept.

Antithesis

The antithesis would be that everything is something, and something is physical, therefore everything is physical.

Synthesis

Nothing. Therefore my synthesis proves my theory.

[MigL]

Nothing is an abstract concept just like zero.

One apple means you have an apple, but zero apples means no apples exist.

Similarily 'nothing' does not exist, but as a concept,it facilitates reasoning such as logic and math.

 

It also cannot exist physically, as there are things and processes which cannot be separated from any area of space-time.

[Avalanche2001]

Exactly

[ZVBXRPL]

Can nothing not exist?

Can something not exist?

You have something and nothing.

With something, you can have different kinds of something. With nothing, there is one kind of nothing, nothing.

So, do we live in a Universe of only nothing, a Universe of only something, or a Universe of something and nothing?

We can rule out the Universe of only nothing.

So, now we have either a Universe of only something, or a Universe of something and nothing.

We can observe the something, but we can never observe nothing.

What we think of as nothing, might be something. We just cannot see it.

For us, we can only ever know a Universe of something and nothing, we can never know that the Universe is only something.

There might be something there, but we don't know if there is or not.

Even if at some point, we discover something, something that we previously thought was nothing, you still have more nothing.

Is that nothing, something or nothing?

You can never fully answer this question.

You can only know that the Universe is either something and nothing or only something.

From our perspective it can only be something and nothing because we can never know for certain that nothing is really nothing, it might be something.

[recursion]

Answering the question "Can nothing exist?":

 

"nohing is" and "everything is not" against "everything is" and "nothing is not". the second statement is a paradox, the firs isnt.

 

to me, this would imply, that the original question isnt correct, that its opposite IS the question: "can nothing not exist"

 

Ideologically, it can exist. Physically, it is a relative emptiness.