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

I'm not aware of any other threads on this topic.

So, what do you think?

There is no reason for one instead of the other.

Nothing itself is something, nothing itself is a paradox.

Why not?

Originally posted by Mindship
Why not?

Because there being nothing would make more sense then there being something... Let's be honest here, that we exists is absolutely freaking impossible yet we do.

for you to ask that question, there wud have to be sumthing, nuthingness exists, sumthing exists, and everything else exists including non existance. all unique bubbles in an ocean that by nature is trancendant to anything, everything and nuthing. the reason sumthing exists is because its a concept stemming from abstraction that has a defineable{even if not logical} beginning and characteristics {even if they can only be felt and not understood}. all such concepts exist in their own domain and thus there are an infinite number of them. mostly they are utterly self contained and dont need beginning end/creation destruction unless that is part of what defines them. only in the human mind do they comingle which is an oddity as the human mind is apparently bound in EXISTANCE{the comingling makes u want to imagine nuthingness}. but i think when we are born, a sumthwat blank slate, uncorrupted, innocent, we have the ability to share partly with the trancendant abstraction through which it might be said we came form{in a way, it doesnt mean we were BORN from it as thats another comcept in itself, but we are OF IT, or we WERE "IT". and that ability to comprehend might remain with a few. anyway, its no wonder that we ask the question as any conciounce EXISTING wud. but in reality all things exists in their self contained domains, existance, nonexistance and everything else{n there more than just the 2 metioned}.

nice hypothesis eh?

Originally posted by Fishy
Because there being nothing would make more sense then there being something... Let's be honest here, that we exists is absolutely freaking impossible yet we do.
It is tempting to think that Nothing would make more sense, that it is the simpler proposition. But that is, after all, our conception of Nothing. The fact is, Something exists, which makes me less certain of the soundness of that proposition.

Depending on who you ask, this is nothing

Something exists because without it there would be nothing.

In my opinion, there can only be existence. The mere fact that something exists, means that it always existed. Something can’t spawn from nothing, or can it? We can only think in existence, that is probably why nonexistence is impossible to comprehend. If we could understand nonexistence, nonexistence would be existent. Something has to exist. In defining nothingness, we are giving it a quality, which is flawed. To even talk of nothingness is making a mistake. I believe that it is impossible for nothingness to be understood, there is “nothing” to understand.

There can only “be” existence.

Before I finish, let me say that I am about 0.000000000000000000000001 percent sure about what I just said.

This is probably the god of philosophical questions.

I agree with nearly everything but the last sentence. You should just say it is a dumb question. That's not to say all metaphysical questions are dumb, but this one certainly is and does not merit any real conversation since there is no basis for either side of the argument.

Nothing is a Something. If Nothing is Something, then Existence exists.

Paradox ensues, Existence exists.

well put

At there very least there is an observer. Hydrono could be the observer and all of us products of his mind. Or maybe I'm the observer and all of you originate in my mind.

Or, that is a bunch of crap. But, I think metaphysical solipsism is as severe as the nothingness can get.

Anthropic principal?

Originally posted by chithappens
I agree with nearly everything but the last sentence. You should just say it is a dumb question. That's not to say all metaphysical questions are dumb, but this one certainly is and does not merit any real conversation since there is no basis for either side of the argument.

I’m not saying that the question makes sense, I’m saying it tries to ask a question that could be considered huge. There is a huge amount of debate between educated people on this exact question, and not all of them come to the same conclusion as us. I am still not absolutely sure of my position.

Originally posted by Mindship
It is tempting to think that Nothing would make more sense, that it is the simpler proposition. But that is, after all, our conception of Nothing. The fact is, Something exists, which makes me less certain of the soundness of that proposition.

Well the point is, for as far as we can understand everything has a beginning. That means existing would have a beginning too. But everything that has a beginning has an end, and there was always something before the beginning.

The real question is, what was here before the beginning? And how the hell did that create a beginning and what will be here after the end? And how the hell is that possible?

But this question is pretty much worthless as it's impossible to even understand the concept of nothing and you can never really have an answer as to the how and why. It just is.

Since our understanding is limited, it is reasonable, IMO, to presume that Something need not have had a Beginning. Something always existed (or if you prefer, "Nothing never existed", and this would be a simpler proposition than Nothing ---> Something.

But this sidesteps the question: Why couldn't Nothing have just remained Nothing? (Personally, I am uncomfortable with the "Nothing is Something" POV because we can not escape our conception of Nothing, which is still what the "Nothing is Something" stance deals with.

Interestingly, mystical traditions say Nothing and Something are just different aspects of the Same Thing, which is ultimately ineffable, not even imaginable...

...though wouldn't that still be "Something?"

Originally posted by Mindship
Interestingly, mystical traditions say Nothing and Something are just different aspects of the Same Thing, which is ultimately ineffable, not even imaginable...

...though wouldn't that still be "Something?"

I think they may be right, "nothing" seems to be just like any another type of perception. The meaning we associate to the word "nothing" is our perception, because we give the word that meaning.
Even if we say "nothing" is the opposite of existence, that is still a perception(our perception).

What I am saying is that "nothing" will always be a perception. So technically it will be always something.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think they may be right, "nothing" seems to be just like any another type of perception. The meaning we associate to the word "nothing" is our perception, because we give the word that meaning.
Even if we say "nothing" is the opposite of existence, that is still a perception(our perception).

What I am saying is that "nothing" will always be a perception. So technically it will be always something.

Because we exist, before we existed there was no perception of the word nothing, it didn't even exist. Stop looking at the human definition of nothing, it's irrelevant as we don't understand nothing.

Giving nothing a definition means it's something, the nothing that should have been around once can't have a definition because it is nothing.

God that sounds stupid...

Couldn’t we say it is the absence of existence? If we look at like this, nothingness does not get described. When we say that nothing can exist, we are just creating a paradox. There can be the absence of existence. There can be the presence of existence. I think that the debate about nothingness is circular and we don’t get to the point. We shouldn’t use the word “nothingness”, as soon as we do that, we fail in our task. Nothing is just a term to describe the absence of something. But as soon as we describe nothing, we fail. That is why we must say, “the absence of existence” By doing this, we don’t fall victim to the paradox of nothingness. This is only because “we” make a mistake. When we say, “remove everything”, we say we now have nothing. This is wrong, we can’t take the second step, we can’t say there is nothing. After we say, “remove everything” thinking of “nothingness” defeats the point. When we say, “remove everything”, we can’t follow that statement with anything. There can be the absence of existence, but not nothing (as strange as that may sound) We are dismissing nothingness for the wrong reason, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Fishy
God that sounds stupid... No, it doesn't. It sounds just like Hydrono explained...

There is no point in creating another thread, so here I go.

Is existence infinite; is there a limit to how much existence can exist?

Originally posted by Mindship
No, it doesn't. It sounds just like Hydrono explained...

Okay perhaps stupid wasn't the right word, strange would have been better.

Originally posted by Fishy
Because we exist, before we existed there was no perception of the word nothing, it didn't even exist. Stop looking at the human definition of nothing, it's irrelevant as we don't understand nothing.


Thats what I am saying. It doesn't make sense to look at the definition of nothing, we don't understand nothing since it is not a perception.

Nothing is just a word.

What if nothing does exist? How do we know that something replaces nothing? Something and nothing may not be opposites that exclude each other.

In a universe fill with something, there is plenty of room for nothing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What if nothing does exist? How do we know that something replaces nothing? Something and nothing may not be opposites that exclude each other.

In a universe fill with something, there is plenty of room for nothing.

Nothing can't exist...

But okay ignoring the human definition of the word. I'd imagine if there was nothing somewhere we would never know.. I don't think we could understand it even if we were right in front of it. If we could be right in front of it.

Originally posted by Fishy
Nothing can't exist...

But okay ignoring the human definition of the word. I'd imagine if there was nothing somewhere we would never know.. I don't think we could understand it even if we were right in front of it. If we could be right in front of it.

By definition, nothing would not exist. Nothingness would be where something was not, and sense we are something, we could never find nothingness. Therefore I have to agree with you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
By definition, nothing would not exist. Nothingness would be where something was not, and sense we are something, we could never find nothingness. Therefore I have to agree with you.

Well we could theoretically be in something near the border with nothing...

Maybe...

Originally posted by Fishy
Well we could theoretically be in something near the border with nothing...

Maybe...


Would nothing have mass?

Originally posted by Hydrono
There is no point in creating another thread, so here I go.
Is existence infinite; is there a limit to how much existence can exist? IMO, whatever this Something is, it is infinite...
...and yet (paradoxically, of course) it also contains limits. If it didn't, then "limits" would be outside of this Something, and this Something would then not be truly infinite.

...this, of course, also would imply that Nothing must exist within Something, or Nothing would be outside of this infinite Something.

This is starting to be quite amusing.

Nothingness would not “be” anywhere. If we removed all matter, wouldn’t space and time collapse?

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, whatever this Something is, it is infinite...
...and yet (paradoxically, of course) it also contains limits. If it didn't, then "limits" would be outside of this Something, and this Something would then not be truly infinite.

...this, of course, also would imply that Nothing must exist within Something, or Nothing would be outside of this infinite Something.

This is starting to be quite amusing.

Nothing comes to mind in response.

Originally posted by Hydrono
Nothingness would not “be” anywhere. If we removed all matter, wouldn’t space and time collapse?

No, it wouldn't be there so it couldn't really collapse.

Originally posted by Fishy
No, it wouldn't be there so it couldn't really collapse.

Zero point energy.

Interesting page

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Something.pdf

Originally posted by Hydrono
Interesting page

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Something.pdf

Cool, but if nothing is unstable, is it really nothing?

Originally posted by Fishy
No, it wouldn't be there so it couldn't really collapse.

Sorry, incorrect choice of words

I remember this as an interesting exercise to try to visualize nothing...

Imagine a sphere whose center is anywhere and whose radius is infinite.

Outside of this sphere is nothing.

Originally posted by Mindship
I remember this as an interesting exercise to try to visualize nothing...

Imagine a sphere whose center is anywhere and whose radius is infinite.

Outside of this sphere is nothing.

If you can envision nothing, then it isn't nothing. If I had a bottle filled with nothing, there would be no inside to the bottle.

Nothing is just a word. Nothing isn't something. Nothing does not exist.

Originally posted by pcp
Nothing is just a word. Nothing isn't something. Nothing does not exist. But you just said it was a word.

Originally posted by pcp
Nothing is just a word. Nothing isn't something. Nothing does not exist.

You are right nothing doesn't exist, but there might be an end to something and nothing would be beyond that...

It's not a question of "does not exist" (implying it could exist). By definition, nothing can not exist. That's why there's something.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's not a question of "does not exist" (implying it could exist). By definition, nothing can not exist. That's why there's something.

However, by stating that nothing cannot exist, you have stated that it does.

Sleight-of-word.

Nothing is something because you even call it anything

Originally posted by chithappens
Nothing is something because you even call it anything

You can't call nothing anything.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't call nothing anything.

The word nothing, or nothing itself? (If nothing can be called nothing)

Originally posted by Hydrono
The word nothing, or nothing itself? (If nothing can be called nothing) So the word nothing is not nothing?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So the word nothing is not nothing?

No the word nothing is definitely something, otherwise we couldn't say it. You couldn't say nothing if nothing was really nothing.

Originally posted by Fishy
No the word nothing is definitely something, otherwise we couldn't say it. You couldn't say nothing if nothing was really nothing.

You really can't talk about nothing, can you?

Originally posted by Hydrono
I'm not aware of any other threads on this topic.

So, what do you think?

you so stole this from me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You really can't talk about nothing, can you?

I can talk for hours about nothing, it's easy... I just can't understand nothing or really define nothing or use something that does not exist and can not be known/comprehended in a sentence...

Originally posted by Fishy
I can talk for hours about nothing, it's easy... I just can't understand nothing or really define nothing or use something that does not exist and can not be known/comprehended in a sentence...

Give me three pints of really good dark beer and I can talk about nothing all night.

Have you ever read flatland?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You really can't talk about nothing, can you?
The less you talk about it, the more you know about it.

Originally posted by Mindship
The less you talk about it, the more you know about it.

...

So this whole thread, then, defeats its own purpose. Far out.

Originally posted by Mindship
The less you talk about it, the more you know about it.

But there is "nothing" to know.

One can't not be on a boat. That is, one cannot not be when one is involved with something that clearly exists.

So, one might say the opposite is true. A boat can't not be if you are on it. Meaning that something exists because something exists to observe the something that exists.

If the boat does not exist and the person on the boat does not exist: One is not on a boat with no one on it. Which works out rationally meaning that rationality exists as part of nothingness thereby negating nothingness in to something.



Well that was fun.

You sound like that cat who tried to see if he existed by first saying he would denounce all things he held true before. He them came up with some weird illogical proof of how God existed.

Know who I am talking about?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One can't not be on a boat. That is, one cannot not be when one is involved with something that clearly exists.

So, one might say the opposite is true. A boat can't not be if you are on it. Meaning that something exists because something exists to observe the something that exists.

If the boat does not exist and the person on the boat does not exist: One is not on a boat with no one on it. Which works out rationally meaning that rationality exists as part of nothingness thereby negating nothingness in to something.



Well that was fun.

That makes absolutely no sense...

Nothing by definition can not have a boat, or somebody that believes he has a boat or something that even resembles a boat, or something that resembles something else for that matter. Nothing doesn't have anything, it's the absence of everything. But you are right something does exist, that much is proven by us being alive...

Or me at least, can't be sure about you guys.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One can't not be on a boat. That is, one cannot not be when one is involved with something that clearly exists.

So, one might say the opposite is true. A boat can't not be if you are on it. Meaning that something exists because something exists to observe the something that exists.

If the boat does not exist and the person on the boat does not exist: One is not on a boat with no one on it. Which works out rationally meaning that rationality exists as part of nothingness thereby negating nothingness in to something. Anthropic Principle 101?




Well that was fun. Nothing is fun.

Originally posted by Fishy
That makes absolutely no sense...

Nothing by definition can not have a boat, or somebody that believes he has a boat or something that even resembles a boat, or something that resembles something else for that matter. Nothing doesn't have anything, it's the absence of everything. But you are right something does exist, that much is proven by us being alive...

Or me at least, can't be sure about you guys.

The boat is a metaphor. The boat is everything but the observer.


. . .


Which is rather worse than a boat I suppose.

Originally posted by Mindship
Anthropic Principle 101?

Perhaps. But my version uses a quote from Rozencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead and makes a hell of a lot less sense.

Originally posted by Mindship
Nothing is fun.

You're worse than me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The boat is a metaphor. The boat is everything but the observer.




You can't observe nothing though, because it isn't there.