This is much ado about nothing. I like this: Either something or nothing exist, but nothing does not exist; therefore, something exists. The logic is clear and so is the statement.

I like this: Either something or nothing exist, but nothing does not exist; therefore, something exists. The logic is clear and so is the statement. — val p miranda

One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. But anyway, both something and nothing exist (e.g. 99.9% of each atom is empty space). :scream:

I will have to consider general nothing. Nothing is such an engrained part of our life, like time. Do you think that nothing (general or specific) could ever be located? It could--in the mind of humans. — val p miranda

(General/Universal) Nothing negates anything and everything.

A gedanken experiment is in order. Imagine a man Y and a woman X who've been brought up since infancy in one room, with an attached bathroom cum toilet of course - all their basic needs are fulfilled. In short this room is their universe - everything they know is in the room.

One fine day the two are sitting on their bed and X says to Y "I'm thinking of something, can you guess what it is?" "I'll try" replies Y. He begins "is it this (pointing to an object in the room)?" X responds "no!" "Oh, ok, it's this then (again pointing at an item in the room)" goes Y. "Nope" says X. This goes on and on until Y realizes that he's checked everything in the room. He looks at X, puzzled, X smiles back and blows Y a kiss.

"Why is there anything at all?" Because nothing prevents anything from coming-to-be. :smirk: ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

The word "nothing" has two very intriguing meanings

1. Nothing as in Nothing

2. Nothing functions as linguistic shortcut e.g. I don't want anything = I want nothing.

As i've pointed out here .

As i've pointed out here ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Nice! The word "nothing" is multifaceted. It has been used in so many different areas in as many different ways.

What I find intriguing about nothing is that it's essentially apophatic, to be understood via negativa. Ergo the question "what is nothing?" is, in a sense, meaningless; as you like to put it, it's a pseudo-question.

But is simply space nothing? Well, space may be simply immaterial. But that is not nothing but no-thing.

We have been living with nothing a long time. it has grown on us and it is hard to eliminate. Recently, it occured to me that we have been discusing a non-existent. Incidentally, I appreciate all coments, pro or con

We have been living with nothing a long time. it has grown on us and it is hard to eliminate. Recently, it occured to me that we have been discusing a non-existent. Incidentally, I appreciate all coments, pro or con — val p miranda

As I said, nothing is more easily grasped as a particular than as a universal.

Intriguingly and lamentably, there's been more work done on $\infty$ (Georg Cantor et al) than $0$ in mathematics that is. Philosophers have studied the topic but I don't recall encountering any good treatise analyzing nothing in a way that deserves the label progress.

Or rather, savage irony.

But is simply space nothing? Well, space may be simply immaterial. But that is not nothing but no-thing. — val p miranda

Jan Westerhoff's The Non-Existence of the Real World, recently published, emphasizes this point from both Buddhist (Madhyamaka) and Western perspectives.

I now offer experimental proof of nothing:
After a few drinks nothing tastes good.
QED

:zip:

Yeah, "empty space" does not refer to nothing-ness.

What's the difference betwixt nothing and God as approached via negativa (apophatic theology)?

What's the difference betwixt nothing and God as approached via negativa (apophatic theology)? — Agent Smith

Nada.

I thought so, but somehow I'm not all that happy with that answer!

Things are such that there's no such thing as 'no such thing'.

Which pile of words establishes no more than that there is a pile of words.

Thus to ask why there is something rather than nothing is clearly something rather than nothing; and that is why, whenever it is asked, there is something and not nothing. Try to imagine no one repetitively asking why there is nothing rather than something. It never happens.

If nothing does so much for you guys, it gotta mean something right? Paradox away all you like and equate God with nothing, or nothing with being and God with being and being with nothing again, but what does such a spiral indicate? Maybe we can get all ratio-phenomenological and conclude that we have concepts that denote more than we can experience. That would then be an indication that our conceptual apparatus is somehow apart from, or over and above our experience. The concept of nothing, proves then, as does the concept of the most perfect being, the 'plenum', that there are ideas beyond the scope of our earthly existence. That God is somehow added in the mix of being an nothing, would, then, not be any coincidence.

However, as there is also the equation of God with nothing, it cannot be the JCI God, but has to be something, or nothing, utterly transcendental. Perhaps that is what those words do ey? they tell us that you are trying to speak of something one cannot speak, and as such, not describing but gesturing towards the mysical. Das Mystische zeigt sich, according to Wittgenstein. The function of purely metaphysical categories, metaphysical because they are solely abstract, 'non-physical', is to articulate our sense of wonder at the world.

This reminds me - A. Meinong. We say unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, etc. don't exist and, in the same breath, claim nothing is nonexistence; clearly a unicorn isn't nothing, oui?

I choose to attack the challenge to answer this question by looking upon it as raising an issue of perspective.

When someone asks the question, "Why is there not nothing?" I respond by saying, "Because you asked the question."

The instance of a question being asked -- any question, including this one -- presupposes the existence of a something (sentient being or person, I suppose) asking the question.

In the instance of nothingness (including instance and nothingness), neither the question nor the issue could be raised. Speaking labyrinthically, existence/not existence is not an issue for nothingness.

If we assume an existing thing cannot exist outside its own existence -- this sounds to me like an absolute boundary -- then existence/not existence only has existence & meaning in the instance of existence.

All of this adds up to say, "No existing thing can explore (even the possibility) of non-existence.

One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. But anyway, both something and nothing exist (e.g. 99.9% of each atom is empty space). :scream: — 180 Proof

Empty space ≠ nothing.

One problem with this lil limrick is that it begins with a false dichotomy. — 180 Proof

If it's a false dichotomy, then nothing, being an existing thing, is something, not nothing. Therefore, empty space, likewise being an existing thing (whose existence you cite), by your own argument, is not nothing.

Empty space ≠ nothing. — ucarr

I distinguish "nothing" from "nothingness" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/707639
... the physical (or quotidian) from the metaphysical (or wholly conceptual).

I distinguish "nothing" from "nothingness" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/707639
... the physical (or quotidian) from the metaphysical (or wholly conceptual). — 180 Proof

So, nothing is existential whereas nothingness is categorical, and thus metaphysics is an empty but not meaningless category.

Wow! I got an information-bearing statement from 180 re: metaphysics.

He He

Nothing denotes a something without any of the properties constituting the domain within which that something is embedded. (Re: physical) — 180 Proof

I think maybe this statement contains a whiff of

A question is an expression that consists of
a variable? :eyes: — 180 Proof

as regards nothing being paradoxically contained_not contained within the domain in which nothing is (somehow) embedded sans any of the attributes denoting said embedding.

I think maybe there's a paradox associated with the conception of nothing as being in possession of a specifiable boundary (of some sort) that allows it to be embedded within another boundary.

Negative delusions: inter alia, nothing exists!

E.g. virtual particles ...

When I say "nothing exists" one possible meaning is "everything has ceased to exist". Nothing is a linguistic shortcut. Instead of saying "quarks are the smallest particles" I could say "nothing is smaller than quarks" but nothing doesn't have spatial dimensions whos values could be less than a quark's.

Normal/Regular consciousness: {feed}, {f**k}, {fight}, {flee}, {mysticism}, etc.

Mystical consciousness: { } = $\emptyset$

The catch: What's the difference, if any, betwixt thinking about nothing and not thinking at all?