That ends any further conversation, then. — Banno
I thought about it again, and Nothingness must be always about something. Nothingness also implies that it has its past and past existence. But some change took place, which replaced something to nothing.I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino
That still necessitates change; the change from experiencing a moment subconsciously to experiencing it consciously. — Ø implies everything
But I think I've ruled out eternalism as self-contradictory, which means there must be real change. — Ø implies everything
The conscious and subconscious experiences may be simultaneous, — litewave
Or if we make a very unusual inference that there is such a thing as Absolute Nothingness, I think it has to be the space. Space is nothing, and it is absolutely nothing. That nothingness is what makes all the the other things exist.I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino
what are concepts, apart from the words you use? — Banno
How could that be? I am definitely not conscious of my experience 10 minutes ago. Either I am, or I am not; there is no in between. And the fact is, at some point I was, but I no longer am. That's change. — Ø implies everything
If cognizant organisms did not operate with some basic logic, then a predator could be attacking them AND not attacking them at the same time. Given that those conditions have different response procedures (be they automatic or not), their mind has to, one some level, treat the condition binarily. It's logic, however basic. — Ø implies everything
Think about that. So the concept seven, the concept money, the concept chalk, the concept galaxy - these are all and each, experiences?Concepts are actual experiences... — Ø implies everything
For something to exist/be true, it must be
a thing. — Ø implies everything
If there "was" absolute nothingness, there would be no definition, no contradiction, no nothing — Ø implies everything
You see, absolute nothingness is only impossible if there is something to begin with. — Ø implies everything
physically, there are fields everywhere inundating empty space. — jgill
That is self-contradictory. The space is not empty if there are fields in it. These kinds of retorts seem to rise from a confusion of exactly how absolute the absolute nothingness is. We are talking "about" the inexistence of anything definable and undefinable; the inexistence of absolutely everything.
— Ø implies everything — jgill
because energy travels at the speed of light — Beverley
It isn't. Nothing is not a thing that exists. When I eat my only apple, I don't then have a number of apples remaining, and that number is 0. The absence of apples is not a thing that exists.For something to exist/be true, it must be a thing. If absolute nothingness is a thing — Ø implies everything
You seem to be saying that mathematics is a greater source of truth than philosophy's pursuit of the ineffable. The later can't be put into words but it can be pointed at and knowledge of this wordless truth can grow — Gregory
So if nothing, either thought or matter, ever existed, how can we cognize that state of affairs? — Gregory
Why this interest in absolute nothing unless it is connected to the human concern over death? What relevance does it have for students of philosophy? — Gregory
I objected to jgill's apparent claim that mathematics is superior to philosophy. — Gregory
It has lots of practical truths but it's still in the Cave as far as philosophy is concerned — Gregory
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.