It’s similar to the old paradox “moderation in everything”...does that include moderation itself?

The “concept” is not “nothing”, but rather “the definition of ‘nothing’”; that should unravel the paradox.

The “concept” is not “nothing”, but rather “the definition of ‘nothing’”; that should unravel the paradox. — Todd Martin

The definition describes the concept.

But the concept is different from the thing it comprehends...
I can conceive of the concept “nothingness”, but if I “conceive of nothing”, that only means I’m not thinking of anything at the time; it is a problem of semantics merely, not being or reality.

But the concept is different from the thing it comprehends...
I can conceive of the concept “nothingness”, but if I “conceive of nothing”, that only means I’m not thinking of anything at the time; it is a problem of semantics merely, not being or reality. — Todd Martin

Yes, that's an important point I'm grappling with at the moment. The concept is different to the thing the concept is about. For instance the concept human is not itself a human.

However, take a moment to consider what Nothing is defined as - it can't be anything and that means it can't also be a concept. Since it can't be denied that Nothing isn't a concept for it is, we have to conclude that Nothing is a concept of a non-concept. Is this not a paradox? It's like saying the beauty of ugliness or the bravery of cowardice and so on.

In other words, it is not “nothing” that is the “concept”, but rather “nothingness”, the quality of being nothing...
For example, if I conceive of the thing that we call a “tree”, I don’t refer in my mind to the elm in my front yard, but to a generalized concept that has particular examples that exist everywhere in the world, and have certain properties peculiar to the species subsumed under that name...
Likewise, “nothing” may refer to the absence of any of a number of certain particular things, but when I conceive of “nothing” as a concept, I am thinking of a generalization, like the earlier mentioned “tree”, a thing that might more accurately be termed as “tree-ness”, or “arborality”, or “dendriteness”, as I made the distinction earlier b/w “nothing” and “nothingness”.

I do get your point. However, Nothing, as a concept, isn't the same as the concept Tree.

Let me try another way of arguing my point.

1. Nothing can't be any thing. [Argument A]

So,

2. Nothing can't be a concept [Argument B]

3. If Nothing can't be a concept then Nothing can't be conceived by the mind

Ergo,

4. Nothing can't be conceived by the mind


5. If there's a definition of Nothing then Nothing can be conceived by the mind [Argument C]

6. There's a definition of Nothing

Ergo

7. Nothing can be conceived by the mind

We arrive at a contradiction:

4. Nothing can't be conceived by the mind AND Nothing can be conceived by the mind

This is the paradox.

The “beauty of ugliness” makes me think of Socrates, as he, in Plato’s dialogues, led his aristocratic interlocutors to consider how a wooden spoon, for example, is more “beautiful” than a golden one, because it is more serviceable in cooking...

...it also leads me to think of how, when I see an old beat-up pickup truck run down the road, with mud caked inside the wheel-wells, I think how beautiful it is compared to the new unblemished ones that are washed regularly at laser car washes, and never taken out into the boondocks to haul firewood or lumber.

Your life is more colorful than mine.

Ha ha!...that made me laugh...

Describe to me the “color” of your peculiar life, and, you mad fool, I will (I promise) return the favor.

Describe to me the “color” of your peculiar life, and, you mad fool, I will (I promise) return the favor. — Todd Martin

Black as coal but I'm what people might call an eternal optimist. Hoping it's some kind of yin-yang thing and white, even greyish will do, will follow at some point. :sad:

Consider "nothing" as the vocabulary equivalent of the numerical value 0. Functional as a descriptor to identify a lack of something, which, theoretically should be there, but isn't. However, once context is removed, is worth...itself.

A life well lived is far more beautiful than one preserved and untarnished; for spoons and people.

Consider "nothing" as the vocabulary equivalent of the numerical value 0. Functional as a descriptor to identify a lack of something, which, theoretically should be there, but isn't. However, once context is removed, is worth...itself. — Book273

I see. So, Nothing is like zero. But Nothing isn't like zero. Try solving the equation x = x + 1. Is it zero or is it Nothing? Are the two the same?

Zero is, to me, the quantitative abstraction of empty sets. Nothing can't be a set, let alone the empty set, for sets are things (conceptual entities) but Nothing is not any thing, not even concepts. Being so, it can't/shouldn't be conceivable to the mind and yet we have a definition which implies we can conceive of it. Paradox? :chin:

If you feel that I'm repeating myself, kindly ignore this post.

Nothing is a term applied to a concept, therefore, label-wise, Nothing exists. Conceptually nothing also exists, as a concept. However, as a reality, you are correct, nothing is a paradox as one is unable to see or determine "nothing"; as anything that is determined to exist becomes something, thereby no longer remaining as nothing.

He he he. Fun post!

Try solving the equation x = x + 1 — TheMadFool

Math issue there. X=X+1 can never be true. It doesn't matter what you substitute in for x. Just saying...

The following definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster — TheMadFool

Simple solution. Merriam-Webster is nothing and so cannot be conceived by the mind. Therefore, nothing can now be conceived by the mind.

Nothing is a term applied to a concept, therefore, label-wise, Nothing exists. — Book273

Label-wise doesn't do the trick. Nothing is not any thing. Labels are things and so can't be Nothing.

As I said, Nothing isn't/can't be a concept, in fact it can't be any thing.. That should end any and all conversations on Nothing for nothing physical (matter & energy) and nothing mental (thoughts) can be Nothing. Is there anything other than the physical world and the mental world?

Math issue there. X=X+1 can never be true — Book273

I could reframe the question for you. What's the value of X?

I could reframe the question for you. What's the value of X? — TheMadFool

It would have to be a dynamic value. Which defeats the purpose of placeholder constants in the first place. Entropy, half-life, etc?

The value of X is not relevant. Whatever the value of it is determined to be, dynamic or static, adding one to it will not make it equal to what it was prior to the adding of one.

The value of X is not relevant. — Book273

Be inventive, unleash your creativity. What is the answer that makes the most sense? I'll give you some options:

1. Something
2. Nothing
3. Infinity
4. Zero

*long sigh*

1. Yes obviously something will always be something +1.
2. No.
3. No?
4. See 2.

I appreciate the options. However, the end result is the same.
Unless X is that which destroys anything added to it while remaining unchanged. THAT would result in a true statement of x=x+1 (or x+ anything frankly) otherwise...the math is non-functional.

*long sigh*

1. Yes obviously something will always be something +1.
2. No.
3. No?
4. See 2. — Outlander

Something + 1 = Something?

Something = 9

9 + 1 = 9? :chin:

So, you mean to say there's something (remember it has to be a finite number) such that that something, when you add 1 to it, it doesn't change?

Infinity + 1 = Infinity but we can't get to that with thd allowed mathematical operations on an equation like x = x+ 1.

Thanks for the interesting replies though. :up:

Why can't you answer the question, what is the value of x? It's a rather simple question. I'll pare down the options to make it easier.

1. x can be something
2. x can be nothing

What is the value of x?

I did answer the question. You may not like my answer, however, that does not alter the fact that it is an answer.

1. Something
2. Nothing
3. Infinity
4. Zero — TheMadFool

For completeness, you might want to add this choice:

5. The question is wrong / illogical

For completeness, you might want to add this choice:

5. The question is wrong / illogical — EricH

Indeed, you're right but here's how I look at it. A question has been asked viz. "what is the value of x?" The bottomline is the answer has to be quantitative for it's a mathematical question. The answer has to be a finite number because mathematical operations with infinity haven't been defined. But we soon come to realize that there's no finite number that satisfies the equation x = x + 1. So, x isn't a quantity and it isn't a quality (non-quantity). The universe we know of is exhausted in terms of quantity and non-quantity. So, x has to be nothing.

Once again, this kind of train of thought is more linguistic that ontological.

Consider that not all languages even have a word for "nothing"; many languages just have a word for logical negation, and a word for something. Most likely English was like this at some point, but eventually we contracted "no" and "thing" into a discrete noun.

But it's a special noun. If I say "There's nothing to be afraid of", I am not saying be afraid of one thing, that I am calling "nothing". I am saying logical-NOT( there is something to be afraid of )

A lot of the problem with the OP (and most of the other threads with the word "nothing" in the title) is in treating it as some discrete entity unto itself.

I'm not following your logic. You agree with me that the question is wrong/illogical - i.e., the question has no meaning. And yet you go ahead and attempt to answer it anyway.

A question has been asked — TheMadFool

No - a question has not been asked. A bunch of disconnected words have have been strung together and a question mark has been placed at the end. It may be some form of poetry - maybe analogous to religious talk - but it is not subject to any logical analysis.