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

Simple but complex question:

Can there be a true 'nothing', or would 'nothingness' still be a state of existence meaning it would need to 'exist', therefore negating that 'nothing' is truly 'nothing'?

Can non-existence exist?

Discuss.

Picture a sphere whose center can be anywhere and whose radius is infinite. Other than that sphere, nothing exists.

So no.

Can you get something from nothing? No you can't, because there was nothing to take from. Math proves this, unless you go into negative figures, but even then there is something to take from, in this case there is nothing. It's like that Stevie Wonder tune goes, nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you gotta have something.... blah blah blah.

Nothingness can exist for no time, then it becomes something.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
So no. No, yes. Nothing, literally, exists outside the infinite sphere. How could something? It can't, not even darkness or 3 dimensions. Nothing is nothing, unimaginable. But it exists in the presence of infinite existence. The ultimate yin and yang.

That would still be 'no', no? The state of non-existence would exist, meaning it exists, meaning the exterior of that sphere exists.

*edit

Btw, I know connotation can't be conveyed in text, so I just want to let you know there's nothing dismissive or contentious in my replies in this thread. Just civil curiosity.

umm yes its called space... yes it something out there but for large parts it is nothing

Can non-existence exist? its non existing so no...............

Originally posted by iscaremonkeys
Can non-existence exist? its non existing so no...............

But if something doesn't exist, then that is nothing.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
That would still be 'no', no? The state of non-existence would exist, meaning it exists, meaning the exterior of that sphere exists. It exists by its absence. It's a paradox, which is generally what you get when asking ultimate-type questions.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Btw, I know connotation can't be conveyed in text, so I just want to let you know there's nothing dismissive or contentious in my replies in this thread. Just civil curiosity. Funny, I was sensing earnest, civil curiosity.

Just wanted to make sure that the second part didn't come across as an assertion. Glad it didn't.

*edit

So existence can be absent (in an absolute sense)? There CAN be absolutely 'nothing'? That's what you're saying?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
So existence can be absent (in an absolute sense)? There CAN be absolutely 'nothing'? That's what you're saying? Imo, in its most absolute sense: yes. If existence is infinite, there are no 'external' features or dimensions, no beyond. Nothing.

Originally posted by Mindship
Imo, in its most absolute sense: yes. If existence is infinite, there are no 'external' features or dimensions, no beyond. Nothing.

Therefore nothingness does exist until we talk about it.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Simple but complex question:

Can there be a true 'nothing', or would 'nothingness' still be a state of existence meaning it would need to 'exist', therefore negating that 'nothing' is truly 'nothing'?

Can non-existence exist?

Discuss.

Im going to say that "existence" is all we know so to imagine a form of non-existence is almost impossible. If Non-existence is impossible then that in and of itself would prove that there is a such thing as non-existence. If "non-existence" didn't exist then it itself would be lingering in non-existence".

Makes sense to me lol

Given that all abstract thought is based on ideas and relationships gleaned from empirical sensory data (i.e. you know the concept of 'sphere' only because you have seen one and can reimagine it that way), this question can't be answered. That is because the complete absence of all things is not something that can be sensed, and those who are sensory deprived quickly go insane.

Therefore the answer is "undetermined".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Therefore nothingness does exist until we talk about it.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Given that all abstract thought is based on ideas and relationships gleaned from empirical sensory data (i.e. you know the concept of 'sphere' only because you have seen one and can reimagine it that way), this question can't be answered.

Essentially, this all points to the limitations of human imagination, conception and certainly language. Imho, the question of nothingness is "unanswerable" in that it forms an unsolvable paradox. In order to discuss "nothing" we want to picture or conceive of it as something, but then it's not nothing anymore. And even though I think this sentence -- "Nothing exists in the presence of infinite existence." -- takes a decent stab at it, upon first reading it, how can one not go "Huh?"

If I was gonna put a theological spin on this, I could say, "God created nothing by being everywhere."

Nothingness is all-around us. Let me introduce you to the Planck length!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

And if this weren't enough...

If nothing is outside everything, is everything inside nothing?

The real question is if existence exists.

Most of the time when people think of existence, they're either thinking of matter/energy or consciousness. I guess some people might think existence is a combination of the two.

Originally posted by Mindship
And if this weren't enough...

If nothing is outside everything, is everything inside nothing?
The answer would have to be no. Nothing is everywhere something is not.

You have to be more specific with the definitions you're using.

Originally posted by Astner
You have to be more specific with the definitions you're using. But that defeats the purpose of being vague.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But that defeats the purpose of being vague.
Also, once you define nothingness it becomes something and no longer fits the definition. Back to the paradox. That is why I think the Planck length is as close as we will ever get.

I think it's a neat concept and certainly a puzzling one to think about. But as a possible state of existence--anywhere, somewhere, at some point in "time" (these words lose all meaning when discussing "nothingness"--I think it's fundamentally just a thought exercise. If there is one "thing" that I think has never existed in any capacity, it's nothingness.

That said, the discussion of it can be hard when the medium of discussion is the limitation that is human language. Our choice and use of words can be problematic with something like this. "Something" in this case being nothing at all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, once you define nothingness it becomes something and no longer fits the definition.
What? No! That makes no sense. Unless a word has a definition it has no meaning. Nothingness certainly has a definition. The reason I asked for specific definitions was because I wanted set conditions for the problem.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Back to the paradox. That is why I think the Planck length is as close as we will ever get.
The Planck length has absolutely nothing to with this topic.

Originally posted by Astner
What? No! That makes no sense. Unless a word has a definition it has no meaning. Nothingness certainly has a definition. The reason I asked for specific definitions was because I wanted set conditions for the problem.


The Planck length has absolutely nothing to with this topic.

Look up a definition for yourself. Nothingness is not definable although the word may have a definition.

Do you know what the Planck length is? It is a distance that cannot be divided. That means there is nothing inside a Planck length. That sounds like nothingness to me. So why would that not be part of the subject? Unless you were being clever, because absolutely nothing to with this topic is the topic.

There is no reason for there to be anything, if there were nothing, no justification would need to be made for that, the odd bit is that anything at all does exist.

youre drunk scream stop

Originally posted by Tzeentch
youre drunk scream stop

^ This is why I love Blax.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Simple but complex question:

Can there be a true 'nothing', or would 'nothingness' still be a state of existence meaning it would need to 'exist', therefore negating that 'nothing' is truly 'nothing'?

Can non-existence exist?

Discuss.

This might look as a paradox.... But after long ass reflexion is yes....

Non existance is already a paradox. True to our universe... It's a philophic definition that live in our mind.

But that's true, for a single universe without any parrallele word and alternativ reality.

Because there is peharps an infinite number of alternative realities where after the big bang everything go different with different rules....
So in this perpectiv anything is possible.

So may this definition not even exist. XD Paradox.

And what was before the big bang?
We weren't there so there is no non existance ! Doe in teh real word valor as truth honor trully exist???? Those are just tool to help us comprehend our surrhounding universe...

Here the true philosophe !

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The real question is if existence exists.

Most of the time when people think of existence, they're either thinking of matter/energy or consciousness. I guess some people might think existence is a combination of the two.

Not sure if that'd be the real question either mmm

But this is close to a sensible answer. If existence is a thing it's just because we invented the concept of "existence" and we allowed "nothing" to be a part of such wording. This is more of a question of language and our capability of expressing nonsense and not so much about the universe or filosophy.

Originally posted by Mindship
No, yes. Nothing, literally, exists outside the infinite sphere. How could something? It can't, not even darkness or 3 dimensions. Nothing is nothing, unimaginable. But it exists in the presence of infinite existence. The ultimate yin and yang.

But then think of this reality you describe as just a single infinite element in an array of other realities. And each element is infinite, as well.

In which case, yes, every element is infinite and nothing else can exist inside of its instance. However, an infinite number of other infinitely large elements can exist, completely independent of each other.

So, in this case, nothing cannot exist in the face of everything existing.


Here's another problem: there could be an infinite number of sets of these arrays (an infinite number of arrays which contain an infinite number of elements and each element is infinite in size). This is more like what we think the multiverse is like.


As for the thread topic, time seems to be the one element everyone is overlooking. Eliminate time and anything that has, does, or will exist, exists.

So if something disappears from existence, it's only because we perceive reality as a time flow.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As for the thread topic, time seems to be the one element everyone is overlooking. Eliminate time and anything that has, does, or will exist, exists.

So if something disappears from existence, it's only because we perceive reality as a time flow.

I don't see why you'd assume time exists to begin with awesr

The real paradox will be is the non existance can... Non exist?

What happen when people like us don't were here to ivent this concept?

And in the hypothesis of an infinity of parralles worlds and alternatives realities....
Where everything is possible and everythings exist?

Well the concept of non existance will exist since there people like us that don't realise than there is an infinite possibilities of alternatives universe....
But it will be a wrong and mistaken concept....

People already awser this kind of question before.... Could you debate of LESS abstracts concepts.
After all philosophy can....

Originally posted by Revanchiste
And in the hypothesis of an infinity of parralles worlds and alternatives realities....
Where everything is possible and everythings exist?

The fact that everything can exist doesn't mean everything exists either. I mean, we throw generalizations at the universe based in certain maths we use to describe it, but the universe is not forced to follow the rules of said math.

Anyways, we cannot experience infinity so we might as well assume whatever.

except you can not imagine such thing. Human can not comprehend non-existence the closest thing we can imagine non existence is black or white space.

You've sighted something like radio active decay. That is not the answer. Instead look at it from a positive perspective. The breath of life is vivid and non-existence is like a bank that you deposit in and can't withdrawl once invested. More like the blank slate of life that we save our personal value in.
Invest wisely.