I'm not saying that the hammer lacks any physical properties, only that the being, or the hammer-ness of the hammer, is not its physical properties. Moreover, its being is not some mysterious property added onto it extrinsically. The being of the hammer, as ready to hand equipment, is always already determined by the referential whole (the world). I can give you more examples if you like? The key point, however, is that this kind of being is not a property, as hard as that might be to understand. — bloodninja

You picked out one of the most beautiful ideas in B&T. Really it's just a testament of the book's strength that the idea is hard to communicate. We are trained to think in terms of the present-at-hand, even if we've never read Descartes, for instance. The "scientific image" is the "real" image, even if it is a learned abstraction as opposed to our immersion in the ready-to-hand since childhood.

There couldn't have been nothing — Michael Ossipoff

Well, NOTHING = nonexistence.

Abstract objects were always there, and didn't at some time appear to occupy what was once nothing. — Michael Ossipoff

But NOTHING isn't a concept.

‘‘There is nothing in this world more dangerous than a humiliated man.‘‘
Kai — Vajk

(Y)

But NOTHING isn't a concept. — TheMadFool

What else is it? It isn't ever anyone's experience.

But the if-then facts that I'm talking about are concepts too, meaning that each universe, such as ours, consisting of an inter-referring system of them is conceptual too.

Michael Ossipoff

What else is it? — Michael Ossipoff

There is the answer for the first part:






About the second part:

It isn't ever anyone's experience. — Michael Ossipoff

So you saying that Socrates wasn‘t anyone, then who was he?

So you saying that Socrates wasn‘t anyone, then who was he? — Vajk

I must admit that i don't know what the matter of whether Socrates was anyone has to do with the matter of whether Nothing is a concept or is ever anyone's experience.

Michael Ossipoff










.

Why is that, what do You think?
Is it because You do not see my points, or is it because there is nothing to see?

Why is that, what do You think?
Is it because You do not see my points — Vajk

Yes. But I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm only saying that we're talking about different subjects.

or is it because there is nothing to see?

I don't know, Philosophy allows so much verbal scope that it's easy for people to talk past eachother in a philosophical discussion. Too often, we're talking really about different subjects, and what i say doesn't apply to what you said, and vice-versa. That happens all the time in philosophy, and is the reason why there's so much disagreement. ...and always so much unlimited room for disagreement.

But it prevents us from reaching agreements. Professional academic philosophers love that, of course, it provides them with endless scope to continue publishing. You know, "Publish or Perish".

I'm willing to listen to and answer any objection(s) to my metaphysical proposal, or other metaphysical or ontological statements.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm only saying that we're talking about different subjects. — Michael Ossipoff

You do not think, that there is a connection between Socrates and nothing/everything?

You do not think, that there is a connection between Socrates and nothing/everything? — Vajk

I have to admit that I don't know what he said about that matter.

But it probably doesn't refute the statement that no one ever experiences Nothing. No one quite arrives at nothing. So Nothing is a concept instead of an experience.

Michael Ossipoff

You do not think, that there is a connection between Socrates and nothing/everything?
— Vajk — Michael Ossipoff

But it probably doesn't refute the statement that no one ever experiences Nothing. No one quite arrives at nothing. So Nothing is a concept instead of an experience. — Michael Ossipoff

May I ask you, what do you think about this?

This question is open for everyone!

So, if you hold nothing in your hand, thats rather a concept than an experience.
Is that what you say?

What else is it? It isn't ever anyone's experience. — Michael Ossipoff

NOTHING is nonexistence. Nonexistence can't be experienced. A concept, on the other hand, can be experienced - thought of, manipulated, etc. So, NOTHING isn't a concept. However, we do have a concept of NOTHING.

May I ask you, what do you think about this? — Vajk

Please read above.

So, if I hold nothing in my hand, I can not expererience it at the same time, is that what you say?

So, if I hold nothing in my hand, I‘m not expereriencing it at the same time, is that what you say? — Vajk

You're experiencing a spatial form of NOTHING. Empty space is commonly used to convey the meaning of NOTHING.

Empty space is commonly used to convey the meaning of NOTHING. — TheMadFool

Even if it‘s not empty?

Everything exists, even empty space, it exists as empty space, so it is other than nothing, but whilst at the same time there may indeed be nothing there. Nothing, in its strictest sense, must be something which cannot be identified, so something beyond identity, but empty space has identity, for it is identifiable as empty space. "Nothing", this term, is of course used only as a substitute for the term "zero", or "empty", as it relates to specific commodities. Not that there is any suggestion to nothing existing, only in terms of those specific commodities. I cannot logically reason that nothing should be the cause of lengthy debate however..
NB It is of course all down to one`s definition of the term, but by the standard narrow definition there is little left for debate.

What makes an ‘‘empty space‘‘ ‘‘empty‘‘?

That's true. I was a bit careless with my words. What I meant is that Nothing is the subject of a concept.

Of course, as you said, a concept is something, and so it can't be said that Nothing is a concept.

Michael Ossipoff

NOTHING is nonexistence. Nonexistence can't be experienced. A concept, on the other hand, can be experienced - thought of, manipulated, etc. So, NOTHING isn't a concept. However, we do have a concept of NOTHING. — TheMadFool

So, if I hold nothing in my hand, I can not expererience it at the same time, is that what you say? — Vajk

For one thing, you'd have air in your hands.

Anyway:

Strictly speaking, "empty" space isn't really empty, and isn't nothing. It's full of virtual particles coming into existence briefly, and then disappearing.

Those virtual particles have been experimentally-detected. Their pressure has been measured.

Aside from all that, when we say, "Could there have been Nothing?", we don't mean "Could there have been local places where there's nothing?" We mean "Could there have been Nothing, and only Nothing?"

Michael Ossipoff

Anyway, when I said that we never experience Nothing, I wasn't talking about experiencing the fact of some little bit of nothing somewhere (even if there were such). I was talking about experiencing only nothing. I meant that we never experience the time after death, at which the body has entirely shut down, and doesn't support any experience.

As I was saying, only our survivors experience that time. There's no such thing as "oblivion". There's a concept about it, but we never experience it.

The natural logarithm of 2 is only an abstract object, but we use it. Oblivion is in a whole different class. Not only do we never reach it, but we never experience it in any manner.

Michael Ossipoff

Those virtual particles have been experimentally-detected. Their pressure has been measured. — Michael Ossipoff

I think it is possible that I‘m seeing these ‘‘virtual particles‘‘.

Even if it‘s not empty? — Vajk

Yes, I think empty space is a good analogy of NOTHING. Isn't that why we use it so often?

Is it possible, that I see it differently, because while I hold (what you call) nothing in my hand I can see those ’’virtual particles’’?

Is it possible, that I see it differently, because while I hold (what you call) nothing in my hand I can see those ’’virtual particles’’? — Vajk

Yes, everybody sees differently. Can you expand on what you mean?

Well, NOTHING forms the backdrop to everything. A physical object occupies the space that was NOTHING. An idea forms to occupy what was once a void/NOTHING. Tabula rasa? — TheMadFool

The tabula rasa is not nothing, it's something. In this context, a physical object does not occupy nothing: it occupies space, which in itself is something. That space also has location, which is maybe something.

"Yes, everybody sees differently. Can you expand on what you mean?"

Im not sure if that is a Good idea or not.

Abstract objects were always there, and didn't at some time appear to occupy what was once nothing.

An inter-referring systems of abstract facts doesn't need a backdrop, or a medium in which to be, or some sort of global or objective reality. — Michael Ossipoff

As I understand it (which is not very well, since I am no scientist), time only came into being with the big bang, and since 'always' is a temporal concept, there would have been no 'always' if there had been no big bang. This would seem to imply that abstract objects appeared at the moment of the big bang.
This assumes, of course, that there has only ever been one universe. If there are many universes, then presumably each has its own time, and that in turn would suggest that each has its own collection of abstract objects which appeared when that universe came into existence.

Wittgenstein said that the world is all that is the case. I would suggest that nothing is the same as there not being a world, which is then the same as nothing being the case. If it is suggested that this leads to a reductio (if nothing is the case, then prima facie it is the case that nothing is the case, therefore something is the case), I would suggest that this is a mistake, because nothing can be the case, not even that nothing is the case, if there is no time in which it could be the case, and if there were no universe, then since there can only be time if there is a universe, there would be no such time.

Brief preliminary reply:

I meant that abstract facts, and other abstract objects are timeless.

They aren't in spacetime at all. universes can come and go, and they're unaffected.

If there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts, and so there would be a fact.

Your objection to that is that there wouldn't be any time for there to be a fact. But abstract facts don't need any time to be in. They just are. ...independent of time and space.

Someone could answer that there could obtain a fact that says: "The only fact is this fact that says that there are no other facts."

Yes, but it's special pleading, a special brute-fact, unexplained and calling for explanation.

Besides, abstract facts, and isolated systems of inter-referring abstract facts are entirely independent of anythiing else, not needing to be factual in any context other than their own local inter-referring context. A local isolated inter-referring system of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals doesn't need any context other than its own, in which to be factual. It doesn't need any sort of global permission for there to be abstract facts. And it isn't subject to any global prohibition, rule, or fact about there not being any abstract facts.

Such a system doesn't need to be factual in any larger context, and doesn't need any medium in which to be, to be true, or to be factual.

This is just a brief preliminary answer.

I heard that Wittgenstein said that there are no things, just facts. I like that.

Michael Ossipoff