A "nothing" cannot exist. Nothingness has no referrent, because a referrent is something that exists. Nothingness is not a state of affairs- a state of affairs exists (at least hypothetically).for a true nothing to exist...
every possibility must exist at every time but never any one at any particular time — unic0rnio
Nothing is the absence of anything, even a definition. Therefore, for a true nothing to exist, every possibility must exist at every time but never any one at any particular time. These circumstances would prevent the nothingness from being defined and it would remain nothing. — unic0rnio
'Nothing' is defined. — unic0rnio
First time I'm hearing of it and from what you've explained I agree with it fully. — unic0rnio
...The Kyoto School might even be thought of as recovering a suggestion from one of the first Presocratic philosophers, Anaximander: namely, to think finite beings as determinations, or delimitations, of “the indefinite” or “the unlimited” (to apeiron)...
Now if that is our best image of true nothingness - the absence even of possibility - then what is the opposite of that. — apokrisis
IOW "it" could be (is the possibility of being) anything — gurugeorge
but that still leaves a generalized possibility. — gurugeorge
I still think nothing is just inherently a self-contradicting concept, it is the lack of anything and yet it's clearly something itself, 'it is a lack of anything'. It's individuated as a term precisely because it contrasts with the term something, not because it's completely devoid - i.e. it has a referent - you can picture an absence by envisioning a space devoid of anything.@gurugeorge I'm really glad someone understands what I'm trying to convey.
"nothing is the possibility of something."
That's exactly it. That is the most efficient way to explain it. I wanted to have this statement critiqued but I thought it was too vague to extend to specific deductions that I've made if this statement were true.
I agree with you fully about the paradoxical nature of the concept. For most people, it's unfortunately a non-starter. I see it as an unexplored realm and believe that the idea can be reasonably discussed given certain restrictions are put on the statements. I think that in order for metaphysical arguments to be universally true, or at least hold some sort of merit, all indivisible constituents of the statement must also be true. So let's get down to the nitty gritty.
"But is that possibility not a something?"
What is something? Does it require an observer to exist? For example, would you say pi exists? Why or why not?
Nothing is the absence of anything, even a definition. Therefore, for a true nothing to exist, every possibility must exist at every time but never any one at any particular time. These circumstances would prevent the nothingness from being defined and it would remain nothing. — unic0rnio
Definitions are simply guides, but use tells us much more. — Sam26
I'm looking for members to point out the flaws in the following statement:
Nothing is the absence of anything, even a definition. Therefore, for a true nothing to exist, every possibility must exist at every time but never any one at any particular time. These circumstances would prevent the nothingness from being defined and it would remain nothing.
If you could quote certain texts/ideas from credible sources in your responses that would be very appreciated.
Thanks and have a nice day! — unic0rnio
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.