. . . science can't avoid philosophy while at the same time its methods don't lead to the Ideas — Gregory
Science is fine but it doesn't go anywhere — Gregory
How is my position objectionable? — Gregory
I heard recently Richard Dawking saying "we dont know how consciousness arises but we are working on it". Isn't the brain enough? — Gregory
How is my position objectionable? — Gregory
All you've succeeded in doing is making the grammatical point that if there is something then there is not nothing. — Banno
I feel the need to point out that the folk here are not philosophers, and that the rubbish on this thread is no more philosophy than the random unfounded speculation found elsewhere on the internet is physics or maths. — Banno
Because I care about philosophy, and would like to see it done well....what I am wondering is why do you feel the need? — Beverley
ButGrammar is the one thing that Platonism has nothing to do with. — Gregory
The problem wan't clear in my joke, it seems, so I'll add a bit of explanation. So "I have sand in my pocket" implies that there is a thing - the sand - in my pocket. "I have nothing in my pocket" has the same grammar. Does it imply that I have a thing - the nothing - in my pocket?Grammar, usually taken to consist of the rules of correct syntactic and semantic usage, becomes, in Wittgenstein’s hands, the wider—and more elusive—notion which captures the essence of language as a special rule-governed activity. — SEP
Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something.
What are the connections / relations between something and absolute nothingness?The bold part seems equivalent to:
Absolute nothingness is impossible because something exists.
and
Something exists: therefore absolute nothingness is impossible — Relativist
I don't see how there could be any. Nothingness is a concept that is mentally constructed by subtraction, but it has no real-world analogue.What are the connections / relations between something and absolute nothingness? — Corvus
But isn't the subtraction external to your mind? Surely you must have subtracted something from something else from the objects external to youself. You couldn't possibly subtract a concept from the concept, or did you?I don't see how there could be any. Nothingness is a concept that is mentally constructed by subtraction, but it has no real-world analogue. — Relativist
No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity.But isn't the subtraction external to your mind? — Corvus
But you still need data to subtract from outside of you? You must know what you are to subtract from what. That what must come from outside of you? If you say, no, then how do you know what to subtract from what?No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist
Anyhow "Absolute Nothingness" itself must be from external to you, because without the object called "abstract nothingness", how could you have formed the concept inside your mind? Where did it come from? What gave a birth to the concept "Absolute Nothingness"?No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist
Nothingness is an abstraction mentally constructed from other abstractions: in particular, set theory. It is similar to the concept of an empty set. Empty sets don't exist in the real world: they are defined as sets with no members, while sets are purely conceptual groupings."Absolute Nothingness" itself must be from external to you, because without the object called "abstract nothingness", how could you have formed the concept inside your mind? Where did it come from? What gave a birth to the concept "Absolute Nothingness"? — Corvus
That's self-contradictory.And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. I — Corvus
That cannot be always the case. You can make up an empty set from a biscuit tin, which contain no biscuits. Empty set can be made up from empirical world objects.Nothingness is an abstraction mentally constructed from other abstractions: in particular, set theory. It is similar to the concept of an empty set. Empty sets don't exist in the real world: they are defined as sets with no members, while sets are purely conceptual groupings. — Relativist
How could something be impossible in the actual world, if it didn't exist?And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. I
— Corvus
That's self-contradictory. — Relativist
You haven't made an empty set, you have conceptualized one. Sure, you can conceptualize nothingness by starting with an empty biscuit tin, then conceptually disregard the air it contains, the quantum fields that exist everywhere, and then ignore the biscuit tin itself. What's left: nothing is left.You can make up an empty set from a biscuit tin, which contain no biscuits. Empty set can be made up from empirical world objects. — Corvus
If something is impossible, it cannot exist. It is impossible to be simultaneously married and unmarried, so it is impossible for someone to be a married bachelor.How could something be impossible in the actual world, if it didn't exist? — Corvus
Yes, that is where nothingness comes from. Therefore the origin of nothingness is external to human mind, not internal to human mind.You haven't made an empty set, you have conceptualized one. Sure, you can conceptualize nothingness by starting with an empty biscuit tin, then conceptually disregard the air it contains, the quantum fields that exist everywhere, and then ignore the biscuit tin itself. What's left: nothing is left. — Relativist
But married and unmarried is not existence. They are analytic concepts. But think of this case. For you to make a meaningful statement that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried, you must first exist. If you didn't exist, it is impossible to say that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried.If something is impossible, it cannot exist. It is impossible to be simultaneously married and unmarried, so it is impossible for someone to be a married bachelor. — Relativist
You're blurring the distinction between the objects of the world (the ontic) and concepts we formulate in our minds. Nothingness is a concept (not ontic). We formulate it based on other concepts (eg the concept of an empty biscuit tin). Biscuit tins are ontic, but there are no biscuit tins that are truly devoid of contents. That's pure conceptualization without any real world referrent: nothingness is not ontic.Yes, that is where nothingness comes from. Therefore the origin of nothingness is external to human mind, not internal to human mind. — Corvus
But married and unmarried is not existence. — Corvus
Nothingness is a concept, but it is also ontic. Nothingness is the only concept which can be applied to space. Because they share common qualities such as emptiness and invisibility. Nothingness / space is the prior condition for the biscuits to exist in the tin. If the tin had no space (nothingness) in it, and it was filled with full of candies, then you cannot put your cookies in it.Nothingness is a concept (not ontic). We formulate it based on other concepts (eg the concept of an empty biscuit tin). Biscuit tins are ontic, but there are no biscuit tins that are truly devoid of contents. That's pure conceptualization without any real world referrent: nothingness is not ontic. — Relativist
This is wrong assumption. For something to create a contradiction, it must be existence either in the actual world as physical objects or in the propositions. You cannot make a meaningful statement about something, if something was not existent. Because to know something was contradictory, you must have known or perceived the object or concept you are stating about.My point was that a phrase that entails a contradiction cannot have an ontic referrent (i.e. there can exist no object that is described by a contradiction; it is logically impossible). You had said, "And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist". It makes no sense to claim an impossibility has to exist. I think this may get back to your blurring of the conceptual with the ontic. — Relativist
When you say Absolute Nothingness, it would be the space with absolutely nothing in it, not even a particle of air. The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness. — Corvus
That is an interesting view on Absolute Nothingness. As long as you have arguments with possibly some evidence, we are interested in looking into the ideas.I take it that by "absolute nothingness" one means absolute non-being rather than being which is devoid of things and hence thingness. Nirvana, as one example, is reputed to be devoid of any thingness while yet being, hence not being nothingness. — javra
I will think about this point, and get back here for update, if I can come up with any idea either for agreeing or disagreeing. But here is a good article on the topic in SEP.If so, in which sense can space occur, i.e. be, in the absence of any and all distances?:
Distance is always relative to things - even if they're construed to not be material (e.g., the distance between two psyches: two psyches might be very far apart, this being a distance, strictly due to their differing views ... if, that is, one were to not take this example as being purely metaphorical). At any rate, here is my contention:
If there are no things between which there is distance, then there is no occurring distance period. And if there is no occurring distance, I so far fail to see how there can occur any sensible understanding of space. Again, what does distance-less space signify?
(The quantum vacuum state yet has distances between particles that appear out of it and disappear into it, for instance.) — javra
Ontic= existing. Nothingness is an absence of existence. Nothingness existing is self-contradictory, like married bachelor.Nothingness is a concept, but it is also ontic. — Corvus
No, it can't. Quantum fields exist at every point in space.The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness. — Corvus
Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too. An absence of existence is also an existence.Ontic= existing. Nothingness is an absence of existence. Nothingness existing is self-contradictory, like married bachelor. — Relativist
To be a thing is to exist. If you don't understand that, then there's no point discussing further.Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too. — Corvus
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.