The question is about nothingness and not about nothing, a hole, a gap, not even space or vacuum.
Those others are negative things of sorts with at least some properties to go with their whatever substance. But in any case, if their identity cannot be proven then they cannot be said to 'exist'.

If something exists, so does nothing exist — Jackson

There is a hole in that argument but it's nothing to worry

Do you think there is progress is science? — Joshs

Science progresses because it is based primarily (but not completely) on technological progress. Technology grows exponentially on top of all previous cultural gains in both science and technology. Also, unlike philosophers, scientists get gradually smarter via increasingly advanced math and science education, allowing them to group-think once settled in their specialties

Philosophy imitated this approach quite successfully in the 20th Century after advances in simple logic and linguistics. That has been over for a while, giving the impression to those exploring analytic philosophy that everything worthwhile has already been thoroughly investigated therefore philosophy is done. But the fundamental problems of philosophy have only been put aside and not resolved.

The word metaphysical itself is ill-defined. This is a step further into the void. — jgill

It is. But that's the fault of people who insist on using ill-defined fundamental concepts in a perverse manner to confuse themselves.

D.B-M said,

I argue that on the growing salami view, it is almost certainly not
now. It is not now now; or less tendentiously, the current time is probably
not the present

There are many branches of metaphysics not just the one. Perhaps some metaphysics as a philosophy of mathematical fundamentals done by mathematicians might be illustrative.

When I take a stroll in the woods or browse through a market or watch people passing by, I observe, but what would make that science?

That was seen as a clear case of European colonialism plus the racial divide. That clarity is lacking in Israel. South African racism was easier to run up a flagpole.

Back in the days of South African Apartheid people didn't find moral clarity so difficult. Israel is a racist, shit country. — Benkei

So is every other country. Anyone who says they're not racist (or otherwise bigoted) is ignorant, a hypocrite or both.

I wonder how this could help you answering what the topic asks ... — Alkis Piskas

I thought the quote in the OP could be made more explicit for discussion. But if you like guessing that's OK too.

We have moral beliefs ("x is wrong"), and I propose these beliefs are rooted (non-verbally) in feelings of empathy. It feels wrong when we see someone being hurt. We apply abstract reasoning to verbalize this into a "rule". — Relativist

Empathy is psychologically subjective condition that we share with other advanced animals. It is itself rooted in ability to assess the mental state of another being. Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states? How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?

At Notre Dame Phil Reviews (NDPR), John Palmer responded to Rickless' Parmenides in some detail.

Socrates [... at Phaedo(76d7-e7)] marks the existence of forms as an unargued and as yet unsecured hypothesis — Palmer

Since the "theory of forms" is more accurately a hypothesis [... a hunch] under development in the Symposium, Phaedo, and Republic, Rickless's attempt to furnish a systematic reconstruction of the "theory" in would-be definitive fashion not only is misplaced but also makes it more difficult than necessary to understand what to make of Parmenides' criticisms. — Palmer

Don't get me wrong, I love modern logical reconstructions based on Plato's work because they make for fun reading. But that's not the same as reading and attempting to make sense of the original dialogue. Rickless's F and G only say what Rickless wants them to say.

I'd favour the reading that what is shown instead is that the arguments reach contrary conclusions, and hence that the One is an incoherent notion. — Banno

It would seem so.
Young Socrates fully agrees with the Parmenides character that particulars can't possibly exist but challenges Parmenides to show the same for the Forms. Part II is intended to prove that Forms are incoherent as well.

It is generally agreed that Plato was not fazed by this apparent debacle. That's because Plato had moved past these simple Aristotelian(!) modes of thought about the world, so that simple Aristotelian critique was no longer of direct concern to him. Correspondingly Plato wouldn't care what Rickless' logic said about a no longer Platonic "Theory of Forms".

What makes it objective? — Jackson

By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent.
The golden rule assumes that all men are objectively reasonable and dependable, meaning all men want 'good' for themselves (derived from Plato).

Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism — Relativist

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values?
Personal empathy, more or less of it might be a secondary guide that overrides an objective rule in men, how does that work for animals?

something is missing if I don't understand it. — guanyun

Yes, but everyone else is also missing that understanding. There is plenty of interpretation and opinion. Some people think it was just a lesson in logic or even a joke, but I just don't think anyone truly thinks like Plato did at the time he wrote that piece. It's obvious that the dialogue was an important turning point in Plato's thought therefore cannot be ignored.

The SEP article is amazing just for un-jumbling the details for us to try to follow.

What is G? And what is F?
Is G an idea? Is F a property?
And if F is a property, con-F is the contrary to F, how could I explain "G is not F and not con-F"? — guanyun

If Plato were alive he would ask the same questions. The SEP has hundreds of articles on modern logic, and many on ancient Western and Eastern logic. Since there are so many different articles on the subject, it would seem not all logic is the same.

Are you referring to the very difficult second part of the Parmenides?

Don't forget those archeologists volcanologists and anthropologists. Democracy is in trouble.

Yet, nations like mine (Sweden) contribute to donations with little to no actual return in any kind of neoliberal capitalist sense, whatever so-called experts on Swedish foreign affairs in here say. Sweden has for a very long time been one of the largest contributors of donations to poor nations or nations in need of help. — Christoffer

You are blessed to be living in Sweden. A country needs excess resources to be able to give charity to its needy. When our grand orange offered to buy Greenland, its inhabitants retorted that Danish welfare topped our offering.

Both or either. The US as a country cares about Ukraine as a country. People in either sense are at a different level of discourse and are a secondary consideration as needed to accomplish primary aims. We, as individuals are not the primary concern but are a fallout of greater circumstances.

America is obviously very concerned with the poor people in Ukraine — Streetlight

I don't get this refrain. You and I caring about all people is nice, but countries aren't you and I.

Why on Earth would any country be concerned with non-productive people who are an expensive drag to every nation? Being poor is an entirely different issue than countries not giving a shit. Poverty is a consequence of not contributing sufficient monetarily valued services or goods to the local economy.

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk. — jorndoe

A legitimate issue. What happens if the US decides to step away from its leadership role in NATO, not now, but after a couple of years? Will the militarized member nations stay united or will their leaders reignite historical nationalistic conflicts against their neighbors?

Yes Russia is absolutely losing and getting their ass handed to them in Ukraine but they also Lord Voldermort and will conquer Europe if given half the chance so clearly all of Europe must immediately become an American foreign policy whore ASAP. — Streetlight

After the American and Russian poster boy old farts die off who will direct American foreign policy and for what end, say in two years? Should Europe just wait it out?

Yeah, I think this is one of the major flaws in the whole "we're safe now we're in NATO" argument. As if a flimsy piece of paper is going to hold any weight at all against the gravity of nuclear annihilation. As if countries don't renege on agreements all the time.. — Isaac

You're making the case against your own position. World politics is changing drastically in the wake of technological and economic globalization. Old alliances are fading and Pax Americana is coming to an end. Political polarization, not in small part generated by Putin's triumphant cold war strategy, has changed the stability of American commitments. America will do what serves its needs just as other nations do. Russia's foolish and incompetent war opened the door and this period of confusion is precisely the right time for Sweden and Finland to affirm their European identity.

It's just a means for the US to bring the fight to the doorstep of other countries, without risking their own resources. — Benkei

That's seen as a problem in the US. We don't want to defend other countries for their sake anymore. We do not want to deploy more than the 100,000 US troops we already have in Europe to guard Finland or Sweden. Public opinion here thinks that Europe should rearm adequately to defend it's own frontiers when it comes to Russia. If you want to strengthen NATO then you all better hurry before the next major US elections.

For Searle, language is an extension of biology; an adequate account will show how language is an "outgrowth" of biological processes. That is, the account is to be naturalistic. Language also has special features that enable other institutions and institutional facts. — Banno

The naturalistic account requires language to originate not in biological processes at a simpler more basic level of individuality of our physiology and psychology but in culture and society. We are not biologically born with a given language but only with potential to develop language acquisition skills at a later age in a social environment.

Languages do not arise from or generate institutions but are dynamically, changeably, interwoven and inseparable from institutions from the beginning, just as the rules of chess are inseparable from the game. Different languages are often required for different games, and those languages may not sensibly be melded into any single common language for our philosophical convenience by some universal translator.

While sociological facts arise from investigations into the chaos of nature, philosophical facts based on sociological facts merely paraphrase the already formal facts of the science. This is what I would call scientistic as opposed to naturalistic or scientific.

I think on the whole psychology is only as ever as good as the individuals who practice it. — Wayfarer

So it's an art more than a science?

Speaking as somebody whose got a four year college degree in Psychology I would have to say that Psychology is both a hard science and a soft science. Psychology can get very mathematical, an ANOVA is just one example, but it also gets much into areas that are hard to measure with just numbers, so as far as being a hard science or a soft science, I would say it's both. — HardWorker

Sciences have specialties and sub-specialties as delineated by their aims, methods of observation and analysis, and their semi-private insider jargon. All of these are cut across by a theoretical 'pure' and applied pragmatic divide.

The speculative theory of mind goes back at least as far as Plato's tripartite theories of the soul. The scientific pragmatic side goes back at least to the Heraclitean dismissal of poets in favor of logos as laws of nature. But all science owes Galileo for his radical rejection of theological scholasticism in favor of Pythagorean mathematical explorations of physics and astronomy.

It's hard to be green. The Celestial Handbook says that there is only one green star. Others have denied even this one instance. But that can't be so, can it?

It would actually make more sense to say that the Sun is a typical green star once we get to know it.

The problem is that the wise explanations for the lack of greenness contradict each other so they can't all be right. But fortunately we now have both the Hubble and the JWST to search the skies for the right answer.

simply smaller — noAxioms

It's turtles all the way down

This, to me, is much ado about nothing! :grin: — Agent Smith

No, it's an attempt at finding scientistic 'fact' oriented foundations for realism.
Does science have such facts? Is general formalized language suitable for bridging metaphysical gaps between sciences we don't understand and formal real worlds? Should we also consider ordinary language, even the biologically natural language of bees in a hive?

particles move from small entropic states to higher. With local exceptions, like Earth, but the global entropy still increasing. — Hillary

The local exceptions are life and being, all that really matters to us.

So truly, as long as two organisms aren't completely identical in every way, given enough time, you could theoretically distinguish between organisms. — Louis

This does not even require organisms as it is also true of any two bricks in a wall or in the extreme case of any two electrons that don't even have substance. Bricks can be distinguished by testing but electrons can't. They are equivalent for most purposes but never identical in every way.

Seems like a good idea to take out a long-term lease on a luxury home and a sedan to go with it.

Kant's primary objective is to make moral laws as immutable & universal as the so-called laws of nature. Have you seen anything, anything at all, violate the law of universal gravitation? In Kant's eye an inanimate object obeying every law of nature applicable to it to the tee is perfectly moral as it has, and probably never did and never will, make an exception of itself (re the categorical imperative). — Agent Smith

Good point. The flip side of absolute natural laws is that they are not relative. This may seem obvious, but similar elimination of relativity from more modern Aristotelian philosophical models would be significant, and enlightened God-free religions should then leap to adopt such simple and beguiling alternative.

Can this brilliant proposal of a natural ethical universal work, or is it only acceptable to a degree in any conceivable circumstances? From a classical relativist perspective, the answer is good try but no. And that is why endless practical scenarios can be introduced to demonstrate why not.

If meaning is conventional, it means that what you wrote has a conventional, which means an agreed meaning in your perception. If you perceive that your words have an agreed meaning, how can you say at the same time that language says nothing but nonsense? Does what you wrote have an agreed meaning or is it nonsense? — Angelo Cannata

Nicely done, but you're shifting around between different philosophies here. Heraclitus denied the value of non-scientific thought altogether. Plato, while not denying the value of 'poetical' thought was mainly busy developing formal meaning that is needed for the purposes of conducting communicative dialectic.

Following more modern science, I imagine that there is at least three kinds of thought -- formal, personal private, and deep-seated pictorial thought, expressed respectively by logical formal language, loosely structured common language, and by artistic imagination. One type of meaning cannot cover them all.

The purpose of conventional language is to find some common ground of meaning to communicate to other people. When I have pain of a kind somewhere in my body I seldom need to communicate the specifics to anyone else beyond saying that I'm in pain. To say that rivers flow is implicit, just as lakes do not. But what if I find the source of the Nile and I block it with my boot, does that river still flow?

Then you referred to an established meaning: how can we realize that it is established, since our mind is part of all the things that are subject to change? — Angelo Cannata

Those are two different things, aren't they? I agree with Plato that we have no direct access either to the outside world or to our minds. These both need to be sensed and perceived, but by different means. The expressive linguistic part of our mental functionality is small compared to our total capacity for thought. What is formal is still much smaller. Yet, this formal language is the only one that philosophy can manage.

if everything changes continuously, then it is never possible to know
/
what we are talking about, because one second later it has changed its meaning. — Angelo Cannata

Heraclitean and Cratylean knowledge of change cannot possibly be anything like Eleatic Aristotelian or modern language-philosophical knowledge of static objects or facts! Therefore we must be talking about at least two distinct notions of knowledge here.

What would you say Cratylean knowledge is like? Plato suggested that Cratylus believed in essences of ideal objects. That could have been so, since diffused ideals are logically independent of physical motion and change, but that sounds more like Plato than Cratylus.

Plato believed that If the physical world changes continuously, then it is not possible to completely know any particular objects. Therefore Eleatic knowledge as justified true belief of particulars is insufficient. Something is still missing.

What we are talking about is different. In itself, language says nothing but nonsense. Meaning is primarily conventional, except for what little is natural (like imitative sounds) or comes from transcendent sources (as recollection). But once there is established meaning it is as fixed as their related Forms are.

Mathematical physics. A person engaged in this pursuit seeks mathematical ideas and procedures that might illuminate aspects of physics — jgill

Thank you for that explanation.
But I often find the talk pages on Wikipedia more informative than the articles themselves, especially on philosophical subjects.

if movement exists, then nothing can have an identity (the river can never have an identity). Zeno is the opposite: if the the arrow has an identity, then it cannot be moving, because identity implies permanence, which means stillness. — Angelo Cannata

Well said.
"... all things move and nothing remains still, and he likens the universe to the current of a river, saying that you cannot step twice into the same stream" can also be read as referring to a moment in time that can never be twice. But a single moment, say now, cannot exist in a strict sense either because nothing can exist as a point occupying space on an endless line. Numbers as pointers to a geometric line can be talked about, but geometric points that occupy space on that line cannot be said to 'exist'.

Cratylus, "you cannot step in the same river once." — Jackson

It's reasonable that Cratylus was a great philosopher and not an idiot, otherwise what would have been the point to lampoon him?

What he said was that if one cannot step into what is ordinarily said as 'same' river twice then it follows that it is also impossible to step into that river 'once'.

I think that this river quote is both historically correct and is true given Heraclitean metaphysics. To make it true, the question becomes what metaphysical assumptions would Cratylus have to have held to make such an extreme statement true? And then why couldn't a great thinker like Aristotle be capable of understanding such a metaphysical simple? Why can't we?