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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Back to the paradox. That is why I think the Planck length is as close as we will ever get.
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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Look up a definition for yourself. Nothingness is not definable although the word may have a definition.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you know what the Planck length is?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.
Originally posted by Astner
If it has a definition then it's definable.Obviously better than you.
It can most definitely be divided. It's just that you can't make any measurements at scales lower than the Planck length, and while it can get complicated beyond the standard model—i.e. in string theory you'd have field collapses—it's still possible to discuss.
Then discuss it! Like I said, look up the definition for yourself. I am not your dictionary.
Re: Can non-existence exist?
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.