The word "something" has a non-specific referrent in the world: evert existent is a something. What does nothing refer to in the real world?

Does nothingness exist? — Jackson

Nothingness: "The absence or cessation of life or existence." (Offord LEXICO)

"'Nothingness' is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence" (Wikipedia)

Do you still need to ask this question? :smile:

Do you still need to ask this question? — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, wiki is for losers. tired of people using wiki and dictionaries to discuss philosophy

i

wiki is for losers. tired of people using wiki and dictionaries to discuss philosophy — Jackson

That's a new one: Dictionaries and encyclopedias are for losers!
So, you say that I am a loser, since I value a lot dictionaries and encyclopaedias. And you think you are not?

I would rather not have to read such "pearls", esp. in this place, but they are still part of the fun. :smile:

Later.

Nothingness denotes the absence, or negation, of all properties. (Re: metaphysical)

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

Addendum :point:

wiki is for losers — Jackson

Can you suggest something better? Danke!

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ApJZKTMOKCr7jxnlG5t8lq-OTaCo?

I'm not as tech savvy as i would like to be but this link should show you a snipet of a conversation I'm having with an a.i. about nothing in particular.

I would rather ask what is nothingness?

It seems to me (both from reading this tread and generally thinking about the given topic) that there is a few possible outcomes.

1) Nothingness as a separate object among so called "somethings". For example: number 0 among other numbers or an empty world among possible worlds. In that case nothingness does exist. Although I would argue if that is really "pure nothing" as it possess the same "objectness" as something else. Number 0 has the same "numberness" as 1, 2, 123 etc.
2) Nothingness as a void in material world. In this case I think it depends whether we understand existence as a material condition. If X exists only if it has some material form, status, stance, whatever, then nothingness does not exist. Although the void still seems to be quite "full" when you think about the third case. As it can be understood as a prerequisite for "something", i.e. as an empty space in which we put material multidimensional objects.
3) Nothingness par excellence. Imagine that you have a bowl - this is your "time & space". You can fill it up with a soup or some snacks. Empty the bowl. What is nothingess? Is it the air now filling the bowl? Or maybe it is the empty bowl itself?

No. You throw away the bowl. Now there is nothingness.

And I don't think that the question is still relevant in the third case.

There is no problem. Nothing refers to absence. Kant did a pretty good job of highlighting this in terms of noumenon.

Nothing exists ionly in a ‘negative’ sense not a positive one. So when you frame the term as what think is in a ‘positive’ sense you are just fooling yourself and others as well it seems. You may as well ask about thr existence of ‘colourlessness’ or ‘emptiness’.

'Nothing' is ever present under scrutiny, within itself and everywhere, a self perpetuating and ineffable enigma waiting to unfold into reality. I recently tried to convince someone that something can come from nothing but apparently I got some research to do if I ever have a chance of being persuasive with regard to putting faith into such outlandish claims. I must divulge, I haven't read anything for a long while, I haven't even read the majority of comments in this thread. Nothingness exists even if only as a word or a concept and I have to say I havn't looked into it and it might be something you encounter during meditation.

Certainly it exists. It's over there, next to somethingness.

Didn't Sartre describe a variety of ways in which nothingness can be experienced?

As I've said in past threads; I think there is a linguistic issue with the word "nothing", in English, that is often right at the core of the issue.
People will say things like "nothing is still something" and "how can 'nothing' have a property of existing", which I think are meaningless statements.

In English, the words "no" and "thing" have been concatenated into a noun: "nothing". But it's a special noun. If I say "There's nothing to be afraid of", I am not saying we should be afraid of one thing, that we're labeling "nothing". I am saying there are zero things to be afraid of: we should not be afraid.

And likewise with the universe. If we say there was nothing before this universe, that is not positing a state where a thing we're labeling "nothing" has the property of existence. Not usually anyway.

If we were going to go down the road of trying to make a "real" noun of "nothing", then sure we can demonstrate "nothing" easily. It occupies zero space, so right now there's an infinity of "nothings" in any volume of space.