Yes, it's difficult to talk about NOTHING. Being, by definition, nonexistence, it lacks properties we're familiar with and, so, is beyond our grasp.
We may, however, approach it negatively, in fact it's defined negatively - as what it isn't. The only property NOTHING has is zero, a quantiative property. — TheMadFool
Numbers themselves are not properties — Herg
Quantity is a property that can exist as amultitude or magnitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less", or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement. — Wikipedia
Martin Heidegger's argument in Being and Time. I would kindly suggest that your ontology needs to be either displaced or supplemented. — bloodninja
The abstract concept of zero and the abstract concept of nonexistence are distinct from each other as well as from the yet more abstract concept of Nothing. — Cabbage Farmer
Here you seem to be making an implicitly metaphysical claim that the physical stuff the hammer is made out of is actually real, and therefore, because it’s actually real, the dog can actually play with it. — bloodninja
Please note that, for the dog, the hammer is neither ontologically ready-to-hand equipment nor an ontologically present-at-hand object. I think it’s safe to say that dogs aren’t ontological, and for that reason the dog has no understanding of the being of the hammer as either a hammer or an object. For the dog it is a curious play-thing. Therefore that the dog can play with the hammer does not prove that the hammer is also an object. Ontologically speaking, the dog is just irrelevant. — bloodninja
The hammer driving in the nail in wood in order to..., the door knob you don't notice but that you nevertheless turn to open the door in order to enter the room in order to..., the keyboard beneath your fingers that you type on in order to express the meaning of the sentence in order to..., the sidewalk at your feet while rushing to the train in order to not be late to work... have in the first instance the intelligibility of readiness-to-hand, there is no awareness of anything like an object. — bloodninja
Moreover, properties do not belong to the ready-to-hand. Properties only belong to present-at-hand ontology. — bloodninja
Numbers themselves are not properties
— Herg
Really? What then of the distinction quality vs quantity? — TheMadFool
For instance, red is a certain wavelength of light. — TheMadFool
Is Sunyata = NOTHING? — TheMadFool
Number is not the same as quantity. — Herg
Perhaps these things are irrelevant, hm what do you think? — Vajk
It's a notoriously difficult concept to define, — Wayfarer
However, the point in the context of this thread, is that Buddhist (and Indian) mathematicians didn't have the hang-ups about the concept of zero that were apparently held by rationalist Western mathematicians. — Wayfarer
U know that, huh?
"You know nothing John Snow — Vajk
It seems you're not making much effort to come to terms with my position, only to disagree with it. — bloodninja
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. — bloodninja
Moreover, its being is not some mysterious property added onto it extrinsically. — bloodninja
The being of the hammer, as ready to hand equipment, is always already determined by the referential whole (the world). — bloodninja
The key point, however, is that this kind of being is not a property, as hard as that might be to understand. — bloodninja
Could Nothing be the Primal Cause in a well Sophisticated world? — Vajk
To summarise my position:
1. The being of the hammer, its existence, is as a physical object. It has physical properties which are intrinsic to it.
2. The hammerness of the hammer, its being a hammer as opposed to its merely being, is an extrinsic property which is added to the hammer by us. — Herg
What does it mean to say "NOTHING is nonexistence"? Do you mean that "Pegasus does not exist" and "Pegasus is NOTHING" are essentially the same claim?If you have the time, can you unpack the above quote for me? How is zero different from nonexistence from NOTHING?
To me, NOTHING is nonexistence and zero is a property of NOTHING. — TheMadFool
So far as I can see, the main difference between zero and nonexistence is that zero is a number concept with a role in a system of number concepts, whereas the concepts of existence and nonexistence are distinct from, and I suppose logically prior to, any concept of number.The abstract concept of zero and the abstract concept of nonexistence are distinct from each other as well as from the yet more abstract concept of Nothing. — Cabbage Farmer
What does it mean to say "NOTHING is nonexistence"? Do you mean that "Pegasus does not exist" and "Pegasus is NOTHING" are essentially the same claim? — Cabbage Farmer
NOTHING is a concept — Cabbage Farmer
So far as I can see, the main difference between zero and nonexistence is that zero is a number concept with a role in a system of number concepts, whereas the concepts of existence and nonexistence are distinct from, and I suppose logically prior to, any concept of number. — Cabbage Farmer
What is a "mental world"? How many mental worlds are there? What does it mean to say an idea or concept or fictional object "exists in the mental world"?I was clear (at least I tried to be) that a thought, one of which is a pegasus, is not nonexistence. A pegasus is an idea and exists in the mental world. It may have no physical correlate but a pegasus exists in the mind. So, no, I don't think a pegasus is NOTHING. — TheMadFool
I agree that, at least typically, a concept is not identical to the thing it is a concept of.NOTHING is not a concept. I believe we can have concepts OF things but the concept is not equivalent to the thing we have a concept of. This part is still unclear to me but my reasoning is that NOTHING, being defined as nonexistence, can't be a concept because concepts exist in the mental world. So, I think we have a concept OF NOTHING and this concept is something similar to a road sign pointing to NOTHING without itself being that which it points to. — TheMadFool
But I'm not left with NOTHING when you take away my dogs. I'm left with plenty, but no dogs. Likewise, when you take my dogs, I'm not left with ZERO, but with zero dogs. Similarly, I don't "have TWO", but I have two hands and two feet.Zero is, to me, the quantity of NOTHING. If you have 2 dogs and I buy them both you're left with NOTHING, or in other words, zero dogs. Nobody will question my math. However, I do agree that NOTHING is prior to zero. — TheMadFool
What is a "mental world"? — Cabbage Farmer
It's beginning to sound as though you're saying that NOTHING, aka nonexistence, is a thing that exists, that is not merely conceptual, and that does not exist merely in the mental world. Is that the ballpark? — Cabbage Farmer
but the neglect of units — Cabbage Farmer
Are there different Nothings? — bloodninja
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.