Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What is nothingness? Can such a thing exist?
Anything that exists, would be something. So exists nothingness only as a concept in the mind?

dat zei mijn grootvader altijd...


(heck, no clue how I have to translate that in proper english)

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

only as a concept in your mind and even then it's dodgy

i guess everythingin your mind is nothing as it doesn't reallt exist.emotions probably, sisnce there is no scientifiv explanition about what they are...yet...

Try to imagine Yerss' brain............and there you have it.

*tries*
*fails due to overload*

I guess it took a lot of time for you to come up with this subject.

you mean like a void? In which there is only darkness or no mass in it? There are things that dont exists and they're consider fragments of imagination.

Is that what you aiming at storm?

No, I don't think it exists only in the mind... I think if you asked most physicists they'd say that it is what exists outside the universe... And some extremely remote parts of space have absolutely nothing in them

Though that's if we're talking about strictly matter

Though theoretically... Our "idea" of such a place does not exist in that place so... Hell, you're confusing me.

Nothingness is nothing so therefore can't exsist

I dont understand your point????


Nothing is absence of everything.

Darkness is absence of all light, and darkness exists, does it not? Therefore, nothingness exist, only as absence of everything,

Well, unfortunately, Storm enormously contradicted herself in the first statement, rather destroying the question.

That is actually a damn good way of exlaining it Milla

*is trying not to act surprised at intellectual Lils*



J/K, I totally agree with Milla, nothingness in itself cannot possibly exist, as it is a contradiction in terms, but it can exist to compliment something else, such as the "absence of everything".

clap Well said chica

just wondering...a vacuum has NOTHING in it, but does that make it nothing itself...? Or is a vacuum another title we give to mean nothing?

Uh.....

*stumped*

Nah, "nothing" being what is actually in the vacuum, yet still being the absence of anything, Milla hit the nail on the head babes.......

Vacuum has something in it, it has space. Space is something.

Would you believe a fool? (if I try to explain it?)

Than nothing is just an abstract concept, right? You couldn't actually have it.

Well obviously nothing will come of nothing.

Exactly....


How can ''something'' exist, if you claim that ''nothingness' doesnt exist?

But that lot won't believe a fool (Shaber)

You gave the example of light and darkness. Darkness is the absence of light, and it exists. But it is possible to have an absence of light. If even empty space is "something," it is not possible to have an absence of something, so no nothing should exist.

You obviously have no concept of what nothing is.

Nothing is absence of EVERYTHING, and that includes, space and time.

Sheesh.

And for something to exist, there has to be a 'nothing'

I know exactly what nothing is. Or rather, I know how you define it. And by your definition, nothing cannot exist, darkness and light and all other metaphors be damned.

Nothing will come of Nothing, speak again, lest you marr you fortunes

Nihilism is a weird and perplexing genre.

Gregory > Erm...what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?

Light and dark have nothing to to with this, it was an example.

See, asking people if they know what the hell they're talking about is what you do not do if you're trying to keep a conversation polite.

You might have meant it to just be an example, but what you said was:

"Darkness is absence of all light, and darkness exists, does it not? Therefore, nothingness exist, only as absence of everything."

That's not an example, its an explicitly stated relationship: X, therefore, Y.

.....and? It was ment as an example and if you read a whole of my reply it should suggest so.

Now, if you have a point about nothingness, do state it, and if you wanna challange my point of view do that too....otherwise...dont bother.

That was the whole of your reply, except for
"I dont understand your point????
Nothing is absence of everything."

My argument goes something like this:
Every thing that exists, exists somewhere.
Therefore, if nothing exists, it exists somewhere.
But the universe exists entirely withing space-time
Since you have stated that space--even empty space--is something, nothing cannot exist in this universe.

Alright, but how can something exist, with out nothing?

You basicly, with your point, calim that there is no such a thing as nothingness.

hmm..dunno what you chaps are babbling about

nothing-ness is only theoretically coceivable. Even in the void of space..there is nothing there, however, the mere fact of it being called void makes it something
true nothingness can only be obtained as a state of mind, i guess...after a sh!t load of practice...in fact...that's the end goal of a lot of meditation techniques..

You cant see nothingness, or touch it or feel it, or smell it, but that doesnt in any way suggest it isnt there. We, as humans being all curious and stuff can only grasp a concept of nothingness in our mind.

Storm said ''is it only a concept of a mind''

I say, no it isnt. Because that would suggest that if there was no human being to think it, there would not be such thing as nothingness. Which again, i dont agree with.

I don't think it is evident that you can't have something without also having nothing. You state it as a fact, but other than metaphorically (with the light stuff), it has not been demonstrated that something requires nothintg.

No, I disagree with that complitely.

Simply bacuse...you just sad ''its not been demonstrated that something requers nothing'' and that is nonsense.

If you take away that ''something'' you are talking about, what are you left with?

Nothing. But even at the time of the Big Bang, something existed; even with the heat death of the universe, something will exist. Theoretically, you could get nothing by taking away something, but in reality, it does not appear that something can ever be taken away.

what r you talkin about. nothingness isn't in anyway untouchable, un-smellable, etc in the same way as..let's say AIR is.
Nothingness is a concept.....there is always SOMETHING SOMEWHERE.

if there would be no human to think such a concept it would indeed disappear. Just like....perpetum mobile(sp.), or even numbers for that matter.
The human brain allows us to think things on a different level...and percieve ideeas superior to...a dog. Who will pick a pile of 5 biscuits over one of 2 because it is bigger, NOT because he knows 5 > 2..

Wiat, wait, wait...you just contradicted yourself. You said there cannot be 'something' with out nothing but when i asked you what do you get when you take away that something, you said 'nothing'. Therefore, you cant have one with out another.

Bing Bang is a theory, not everyone believes it, and people have different views on how it actually happened, but thats a whole another argument.

Just because we as humans cannot grasp the idea of 'nothing', it DOES NOT mean that it isnt there.

You say ''it does not appear that something can ever be taken away'', says who?
I disagree with that, just because the idea is unfamiliar to you, to us humans generaly, it certanly doesnt mean that it 'cant be'.

Why cant it be? Because our mind cannot grasp the idea that there truly is 'nothing'?

Concept of nothingness would dissapear if there were no humans? Are you serious?? So what you are saying, if there were no humans on this planet, all the concepts would dissapear??

I think not.

No, true nothingness can't exist. No matter where you look, there is something there. In space, the fact that it's named space makes it something.

Nothing is not a pre-existing state. That is to say that, yes, if you took away something, you would get nothing. But until you take away something, you don't have nothing. That is, you cannot have something without the theoretical potential of having nothing.



Conservation of mass and energy say that the mass and energy of the universe will not dissapear; thus; we will always have something. I do not claim that it is absolutely impossible that nothing exists; merely that it does not mesh with my current understanding of the universe.

Ah, well ''your'' and ''our'' current understanding of the universe doesnt match with the 'nothingness' theory, yes, i'll acept that.

However, for the rest, who may have misunderstood or whatever.

Nothingness is NOT something you can see, or feel or touch, its just absence of everything, and that means you cant withness it, personaly.

''wherever you look there is something'' of course there is, you wouldnt be able to see nothingness anyway...thats why its nothingness.

The concept no-mass, no-space and no-time can be present somewhere in the universe, and that would = nothingess.

pfhah!..you'd better think it. what is there to exist of an ideea, if there's no-one there to THINK it. hironic to say...it would be nothing, of that concept

it is like you're saying that a memory of someone exists when no-one remembers that someone..

Ah, i see what you're taling about.

Yes, i agree...ideas and thoughts are only there as long someone is there to think them.

However, i believe that somewhere in the universe (since we do know squat about it) there is an absence of time, mass and space.

yes, i agree with you, so long as you underline that concept word at the start of your phrase.
Nothingness is only a concept...that's what i said.
it's the same with those that you stated. you know the concepts of weight, space and time..you cannot imagine how things would be outside of those concepts.....but you accept the conceptual possibility.

might very well be...but...that's in the 'i belive aliens exist' category of resposes. those are beliefs, and without proof, they're not arguable..it just deppends on the person

VERY odd to describe space as a 'thing'. Could someone actually describe what they mean by thing?

i dont think ive refered to it as a thing...i have refered to it as ''something'' though....

Well, I could do with that defined as well then... because space isn't really an object- by very definition, it is the gap between objects. Between ANYTHING. It doesn't realy have any existence in of itself. Like, if you ask "what temperature is space?" the answer is "Space doesn't HAVE a temperature. It doesn't exist to have one. You mean what temperature are things IN space?"

It is a gap between the objects, but its still there. It isnt an object, true, but it exist, its a gap. There is no mass in that gap, but there is time....and space itself, right?

Im saying that if there is nothingness is no space, time or mass. If you have either of those present, then...its not 'nothing'.

No, space has no quantative existence to apply time to. It does not exist so it has no space as a dimensional term you use it as, and without space you have no time.

The word 'space' when used to define the big 'out there' above our heads defines an absence.

Incidentally, having no mass has nothing to do with being space.

aaa..so yure underlining the relativeness of 'nothingness'. Yes, you might say that there is nothing in an empty box, the 'something' being what you were looking for in it. But then..there is soemthing in it..there is air...
the same with space....deppends on what your level of 'something' is set on. One might say space isn't nothingess, even simply because ...it has a name.
nothingness is what we would find where there is no space....if such a thing is possible..

I wasnt neccesseraly refering to space as universe.

Err, no, what you find if there is no space, Dexx, is an object!

Sorry, you are going to have to explain yourself better- that comment does not really appear to relate to mine.

hmm...ok....i see it as...

If you have no space(as in...generaly no space anywhere) or no time or no mass, anywhere in the universe... than that would =nothingness.

Aaah i see what you said. Ok, my bad.

No, you cant have space and no time, you're right, but im saying that 'nothing' is not just in our mind, that such a thing can be...if there was no space time or mass.

why? ...an object is filled space.....not absence of space.

Wrong way around. Space is an absence. If there is no space, that can only be because there is something there.

Well, ok, but I don't think I was ever denying that. I was simply saying it was unusual to refer to space as an object of some sort.

(I wish space was not also a dimension, as it makes this convo very awkward)

what i mean was to question the infinity of the universe. If it is limited, then ...beyond it...would be what i can only TRY to percieve as absence of space. nothingness

No, that would not be the absence of space. Something that is an absence cannot itself be absent in of itself. Kind of a conceptual knot you have tied yourself in there.

aaa..but i didn not say that beyond the lmit of universe there is an absence of absence BECAUSE i don't consider that space is absence.
so beyond space....absence can..roam freely

If you do not consider space an abesnce, you are misdefining space.

good point, but in a space there is still time no?

If you can better define what you mean it might help. 'In' space?

I ment that there is still something even if space itself is empty

i wasn't trying to define space in the first place. Space is the absence of objects, at most......though even objects have space between the molecules and so on..
but i am questioning the absence of EVERYTHING...even absence of space. (so..absence of absence of objects )

Well vacuum is the preliminary stage of nothingness!
Well thats what a physicist would say. because....
there are no atoms in there

but the philosophical nothingness does not exist.
because it wouldnt exist which meant it had no place in existence!

yes, well...as i said, i consider nothingness to be a concept.
however....i can wonder if that vacuum is infinit. if not..what lies beyond it?

I think the non-existence of Nothingness is rather a linguistical problem... if you say "Nothing exists", it's a lie, but so is "Nothing doesn't exist"
It only works if you add an article - "The Nothingness exists", which would also mean specifying a certain Nothingness, but this specifying somehow implies that The Nothingness has something to disinguish it from the other Nothingness... though that would signify that it is not really nothing.

I personally also think that nothingness is a concept, a useful one maybe, but a concept.

I wonder, what would the border of Nothingness look like? Is it possible that there is something and the next moment there is nothing... no time, no materia, no temperature??

Then you are simply talking gibberish, I am afraid.

Space is an absence of things, and does not come under the term 'everything'.

You cannot absent an absent thing, witout therefore making things. If space is absent, that means an object is there instead.

argh...but space is IN objects also.

are you saying that there is no such thing as absence of space and objects? even as a concept?

The two are polar opposites, Dexx. Space is the lack of objects.

yes..well..how to put this.
let's say space is where objects are not, but COULD be.
what about where objects cannot be.

...and object is lack of space.


If this turns into physics...which it kinda has...i know nothing about physics

not yet physics. it's just saying what space/oject is relating it with object/space. Just a connection between the two....i'm trying to look beyond it

Can I just point out that Storm asked if there was such a thing as "nothingness". We all know "space" exists, but she asked whether "nothingness" was simply a concept of the mind or in actual existence......

yes well that's where i'm trying to get. We know that space exists, and that objects exist. but if ONLY space and ojects exist, there nothingness doesn't.

but most of us do agree that it exists only at a conceptual level.

Got it.......

Imagine for a moment that you know everything in existence. Absolutely everything from what "is" to what is "not" and everything possible in between. Imagine that all your knowledge that you hold right now is everything there is to know. If you can put yourself there, hold it for a moment.



Being of that mind....ask a question.



That's how I see nothingness. It is also complete fullness. No question, no existence....no life no death. Simply what "is". By that it's completeness makes it empty at the same time. Everything is a paradox. Allows for free will to have no restrictions. You can but you can't, choose. Each to their own.

But, your sig says "All is solid in Pel's world."

Solid as in 'all good' or 'cool'. I'm not sure what you're point was though.

Yes. It is just a concept. It's just the way our minds work. Like in Timeline by Michael Crichton, he says that thinking that time is flowing is just a default in our brains. It is actually not flowing, because time does not exist.

Read the book. It's way hard to explain

Read the thread...

Nothingness isnt only a concept, its a state that happens in the absence of everything, space, time and mass.

dammit.

There is no such thing as nothingness...Even nothingness has a form. It is dense with sub particles that are alive. They are between us, part of us, and interconnected with us...We are either part of nothingness, or nothingness is part of us...

No it does not exist it is just bad grammer.JM

Nothing is essentially a concept, becuase no-one has ever experienced it. But just like the other things we've never seen, not seeing doenst mean it can't be real.

Nothingness is the absence of everything...therefore it has to exist, because everything has an opossite, and the opposite of something-would be nothing.

ex: White is an absence of color, yet we see it.

^^ i have no idea if that makes sense...but anyway

Nothing is something. Therefore there can never be the believed "nothingness", because there will always be something, that something being nothing.

I know....it doesnt make any sense.

humans are so confined by their mental limitations, that they cant think of anything beyond existnace and non existance

Besides how small do you have to look before you can really say that nothing is there? Is it even possible..

no actually TIME HAD A "BEGINNING" AT THE BIG BANG. Thas accepted by every scientist{well 99% atleast cause theres gotta be sum1 who disputes it}. its hard to concieve that TIME cud have a beginning, but its true.

time never existed before the big bang.

No, it's not.

Sorry.

-AC

acually the only reason why time exists theoretically is because of the expansive motion of the universe, if the universe was static n not moving or expanding, then there wud be not time, theoretically atleast.

actually, it is possible in a sence, i dont remmeber exacty how small, but theres theoretically, a smallest size that any space or matter can have{its realllyyyyyyyyyy small}, at this size , zero point energy from hyperspace meats quantum foam and gives rise to space{dimensions} and basically, gives rise to what we call EXISTANCE

That's all nice, but time didn't begin at the big bang, because by definition time cannot begin.

-AC

i assure u it did, physicists have proven that, or are u saying that people like einstien and stephen hawking have just been blabbering nonsense all their life.

time is actually the fourth dimension of our universe, now just because we cant imagine a fourth dimension doesnt mean its not there. just like just because we cant THINK of a beginning to time doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

It didn't. Time didn't "begin" at the big bang. Because there was something before it, and for the big bang to come around...time had to pass.

Sorry.

-AC

lol, thas the most basic logic given but in physics, time itself started at the big bang, ther was NOTHING, before the big bang, no dimensions, no time, no existance, no space.

"It didn't. Time didn't "begin" at the big bang. Because there was something before it"
thas how a human being thinks logically, but u cant argue ur way out of the laws of physics, which say that the property of the universe called TIME was not present before the big bang, it was born in the big bang, not before it.

there was infact no BEFORE, at all before the big bang, there was nothing before the big bang. anyway even in the universe, time is not absolute, it depend on ur speed and the affects of gravity on you.

Believe me when I tell you I know a thing or two about physics .

Time was present before the big bang.......how do I know? Because there WAS a before. If there was a before, and the big bang hadn't happened........time had to pass to get to the point of it happening.

-AC

so ur saying that stephen hawking and einstien lyed to us then?

there was no BEFORE the big bang, yes yes rationally speaking, there has to be a before for anything to start in but thats only human logic, physically at the big bang, all the laws of physics break down because the density of the universe becomes infinite and its volume becomes zero, therefore, it becomes a 'singularity', when the calculations are actualy done, we know that time CUD NOT HAVE EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BANG , ask any physicist u can find, its just that human reasoning doesnt really understand or actually cant cope with this seemingly ridiculous fact.

^ yup... my head has just imploded!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so ur saying that stephen hawking and einstien lyed to us then?

there was no BEFORE the big bang, yes yes rationally speaking, there has to be a before for anything to start in but thats only human logic, physically at the big bang, all the laws of physics break down because the density of the universe becomes infinite and its volume becomes zero, therefore, it becomes a 'singularity', when the calculations are actualy done, we know that time CUD NOT HAVE EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BANG , ask any physicist u can find, its just that human reasoning doesnt really understand or actually cant cope with this seemingly ridiculous fact.

This doesn't disprove my saying though. I know all that, but I don't personally buy a birth of time. Because there WAS something before, by definition. You're obviously not reading what I'm typing.

Hawking doesn't know what he's saying half the time. He spent a bulk of his life saying one thing, then changing it.

-AC

no actually im reading it, i thought like that once too, but then when u let go of ur human boundries of thinking that you can imagine things like nonexistance and the start of time. and hawking is a genius, u r referring to him saying that the universe started with a big bang but now him persuing the opposite theory that there was no big bang. that was because when he made the predictions in the earlier part of his carear, quantum affects were not studied enough and taken into account, now that they are well know, many theories had to be rethought.

Oh give it a rest Mr. Spirituality.

"I've let go of my...."

Yeah, try letting go of you crap, pseudo-philosophical theories and realising that you can't prove me wrong anymore than I can prove you wrong.

You're telling me that because you read a few books and heard a few theories, that you blindly believe there was a birth of time?

-AC

Originally posted by Storm
What is nothingness? Can such a thing exist?
Anything that exists, would be something. So exists nothingness only as a concept in the mind?

Nothingness is generally defined as the absense of everything. Going back to the example with the vacuum: there's the absence of light, possibly air, etc. But there's still space within the vacuum. And space, though commonly understood as the absence of everything physical, therefore misconcepted as nothing, is, in fact something, as space exists. And nothingness is not only the absense of everything, but the condition of actually not existing. But everything we know exists. Including space. Therefore, Nothingness can only be a concept of the mind.

Originally posted by Cynethryth
I think the non-existence of Nothingness is rather a linguistical problem... if you say "Nothing exists", it's a lie, but so is "Nothing doesn't exist"
It only works if you add an article - "The Nothingness exists", which would also mean specifying a certain Nothingness, but this specifying somehow implies that The Nothingness has something to disinguish it from the other Nothingness... though that would signify that it is not really nothing.

I personally also think that nothingness is a concept, a useful one maybe, but a concept.

I wonder, what would the border of Nothingness look like? Is it possible that there is something and the next moment there is nothing... no time, no materia, no temperature??

Exactly. Where does the nothingness begin? As far as we can see, there is space. There is eternity. Maybe, then, nothingness actually does not exist. Ironic, isn't it.

Originally posted by Tassie
Where does the nothingness begin? As far as we can see, there is space. There is eternity. Maybe, then, nothingness actually does not exist. Ironic, isn't it.
The irritating thing is that the universe is still expanding, growing more and more voluminous as indicated by the redshift phenomenon, so there must be some real nothingness even around the vacuum of the universe, some nothing - without time

I personally think the beginning of time is just as impossible and illogical to imagine as the beginning of life, but they both must have 'happened' at some point, as theoretically impossible as they are.

ALPHA CENETAURIA i see that u have no respect for the point of view or personal character of any 1 different from urself, im not gonna bother arguing with u any more

u know just because u cant imagine anything other than what ur eyes can see doesnt mean that we are all that confined in our vision, n how can u call me psuedo when u dont even know me.

leonheartmm...I wouldn't even waste my breath on him....

im not goin to anymore, thnx debbiejo

In response to Storms question:
I think of Nothingness as a concept with which we start with in order to begin to understand what is in our world. From that point we build outwards such as rock , fire, other. Nothingness is the beginning of everything in the human mind. For me Nothingness is part of the Ying and Yang. To understand one you have to grasp and accept the other. So in conclusion everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Concepts are human's giving order to what we don't know. Without humans would the concepts still exist? Who can say ? It's like saying if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it did it really fall? I admit my understanding is probably quite limited being that I don't have a masters in philosophy or that I am not a Zen Master but I like to think I have some constructive or helpful examples to give that others could refute or expound on. Perhaps reading Heideggar's Being and Nothingness may give you one viewpoint to take into account. To me philosophy has so many interpretations and shades that it is hard to be concise with answers but at least more questions will lead to more discussions therefore leading to a general target that can be more realized. I hope I helped in some matter because now I think I may have confused myself. I tend to go off on a tangent sometimes. by the way hello everyone I am new Here.

hey calvin,
u dont have to have a degree in philosophy to have or understand philosophy, its ur thoughts that matter.

Hi calvin, yea we just like to talk about all the possibilities!!

And I did say earlier that we are apart of nonthingness and nothingness is apart of us.

"Can nothingness exist?" is a ridiculous question. The two words: "nothingness" and "exist" are already opposites and exclusive in meaning. "Nothingness" is merely a recoil of conscious being - an absurd thought.

So Space Nothing will never exist. Something will always exist? In your thoughts. Am I understanding you correctly?

There's always something...The stronger the microscope the more you can see...The atoms, the protons, the wave forms...etc. Always something...

I dont think nothingness has an existance persay.. its just the void of empty space that is unoccupied by any matter.. even if that matter might be atoms or cells or larger. I dont think theres any true nothingness.. perhaps an overgrown child of the minds foolishness to lay question on itself

You guys are not following - "nothingness" and "existence" are opposites, period. It doesn't make sense to talk of a relationship between the two. Empty space is also something, NOT nothingness - nothingess is the absence of being as such, there is only being - only "somethingness" - we cannot talk of nothingness, as being is all we have.

Empty space is not something because it implies nothingness, as the space would be empty (as in 'nothing there' or 'unoccupied').. it may be occupied by smaller somethings, but not ALL of the space is occupied.. there may be very small gaps of nothingness, but there are most likely gaps none the less.. and I dont think they are talking about just an area around them.. they mean in any location in the universe.. and im sure in that retrospect there is a 'nothingness'

...zzz.....please god help me here........'nothingness' means nothing. In being/existence there cannot be nothingness, because then there will be an unbreachable gap in being. Space is NOT nothingess, space is still something, otherwise we won't be able to talk about it, duh! Being is solidly being - there is no place for nothingness, as that would be a logical contradiction

but thats what Im saying, there is a nothingness in-between the spaces of existance.. existances dont inter-connect seamlessly or we would all be a single consciousness

I think we have a definition conflict here - how do you define 'nothingness"?

where no matter exists .. nothing living anyway

"where no matter exists .. nothing living anyway"

I think that's abit limiting the concept of nothingness. Being/existence does not only mean the existence of matter. I agree that there are open spaces where no matter exists, BUT we cannot say that there is nothingess wherever there is no matter. Where there is no matter, there can be something else - a something, but that something is not matter. What I mean by nothingness is the absence of any being or existence as such - non-existence in the most extreme and absolute sense. There are things beside matter, like anti-matter, quantum energy fields, etc.

Originally posted by space
I think we have a definition conflict here - how do you define 'nothingness"?
Seems so - I think we were originally talking about 'real' nothingness, ie. not empty space but nothingness as in - the absence of all four dimensions, the absence of matter as well as the absence of antimatter and energy, above and below, of before and of after, of time and existance itself. - A nothingness as it, according to modern physics, 'exists' or just is 'outside' the universe or there were no universe is, a nothingness as it is assumed to have existed before the big bang

Exabyte, you have the right idea here - nothingness being:

"the absence of matter as well as the absence of above and below, of before and of after, of time and existance itself".

BUT I don't agree with:

"A nothingness as it, according to modern physics, 'exists' or just is 'outside' the universe or there were no universe is, a nothingness as it is assumed to have existed before the big bang"

I don't believe in the Big Bang, or any origin to existence for that matter - it's all infinite/eternal - no beginning, no end.

satsujin, i think what space is tryin toi say is that even in empty space, tou have dimension{length width and height}, and we also know that space is not as empty as we think, there are a million different processes going on in empty space that do not require for it to have mass particles.

Why are they starting to restrict people for no reasons??

I would think they are restricting philo because of his past record and his flagrant disreard of the moderators' authority.

I think nothingness only exists in the minds of those who are already dead. But if they are dead they are not alive to see it. It can't be seen cause it's not even pitch black and when your dead you don't even see pitch black but if you didn't see even that then obviously it's inpossible to see which is why only dead people see it. It's just meant to be that in life there is no such thing as getting the experience of seeing nothing therefore you wouldn't be apart of life. iT's hard for me to explain.

As a kid, when I'd try to imagine what it would be like if there was absolutely nothing, I'd picture a big black empty space. Now, I realize that a big black empty space is indeed 'something' . . . so what is 'nothing'???

I don't know, I've never done it........I don't think it's possible because nothing is still something.

Try to recall the last time you slept and didn't dream. Can't remember anything? There ya go. Nothing.

Originally posted by Mindship
Try to recall the last time you slept and didn't dream. Can't remember anything? There ya go. Nothing.

In reality though you were still thinking of something because your bodily functions were still working.

Originally posted by Alfheim
In reality though you were still thinking of something because your bodily functions were still working.

Subconsciously, yes. But the question, "Is it possible to imagine 'nothing'?" implies a conscious act, something that can be willfully done and the consequences of the act readily perceived...in which case, I believe my response is still viable.

You don't consciously chose to not dream.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You don't consciously chose to not dream.

Of course not. But there are periods in the sleep cycle (nonREM) where dreaming is not manifest.

Originally posted by Mindship
Subconsciously, yes. But the question, "Is it possible to imagine 'nothing'?" implies a conscious act, something that can be willfully done and the consequences of the act readily perceived...in which case, I believe my response is still viable.

Well actually when you think about not dreaming are you really thinking of nothing or are you thinking of what happened before and after? I remember when I tried to recall not dreaming and thats what happened, I imagined what happened before and after and blackness inbetween.

Originally posted by Poo Face
As a kid, when I'd try to imagine what it would be like if there was absolutely nothing, I'd picture a big black empty space. Now, I realize that a big black empty space is indeed 'something' . . . so what is 'nothing'??? Nah, a big black empty space (which is what I was going to say is nothing) is nothing because it's the abscence of everything. Black -- abscence of light, empty -- abscence of capacity, space -- abscence of volume. I guess if you add more adjactives you would have a better specified 'nothing'.

Simply combine the concept of everything and the concept of opposite.