As long as you have arguments with possibly some evidence, we are interested in looking into the ideas. — Corvus

This "we" which you here reference, they'd be "interested in looking into the ideas were arguments with possibly some evidence" to be provided by me for the way that the term nothingness gets interpreted by you in your arguments? I don't get it.

I made it clear what my background presumption in this respect was. To be clearer: Do you or do you not interpret nothingness as equivalent to non-being in you're arguments, this as I've explicitly stated I so far assume you do (with emphasis on this being an assumption)? Else do you take non-existence to be something other than non-being? If so, how are the two concepts different to you?

There is no one correct answer here. But the answer you provide will have significant baring on how the issue of nothingness is commonly addressed.

Then why couldn't you call an isolated empty space as absolute nothingness? Because they share the common qualities for the concepts and existence. Absolute space is also a physical entity demonstrated by Newton in his bucket experiment. — Corvus

Because an isolated empty space occurs relative to givens, such as its surroundings, and is thereby not absolute nothingness. (absolute does mean complete without exceptions).

As to the video you've linked to, it seems to me to pose a trick question from the get-go. By the very concept initially specified in the video, an "absolute empty space" (whose very cogency my addressed contention questions) cannot contain a bucket of water, never mind distant galaxies and starts, for the occurrence of any of these things would make it other than an absolute, i.e. a literally complete, empty space. Besides, Newtonian conceptions of absolute space have been debunked some time ago by the theory of relativity, no?

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. — Corvus

That's perfectly fine, but I want to point out that my post, or else contention, was in the form of a question, and not in the form of an argument one then can agree with or disagree with: Again, in what sense can space occur, and thereby be, in the complete absence of distance(s) between givens?

Because I care about philosophy, and would like to see it done well. — Banno

Oh, Banno. That's very cute. :flower:

We know you care a lot and some noobs (myself included) learn reading your threads and comments... our discussion on sense and sensibilia was awesome.

Cheers, and protect yourself when dingoes are closer!

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too.
— Corvus
To be a thing is to exist. If you don't understand that, then there's no point discussing further. — Relativist

Please back your statement up by clarifying and defining what "to exist" means.

Philosophy is about being able to see beyond the things existent, widening and deepening your perceptual capabilities. If you limit yourself your perception to the visible physical objects only, then you will not improve your perceptual abilities from the ones of the philosophyless folks just discharging their remaining lifetime in the mundane world. If that is what you opt to do, then it is pity, but I can't help that.

This "we" which you here reference, they'd be "interested in looking into the ideas were arguments with possibly some evidence" to be provided by me for the way that the term nothingness gets interpreted by you in your arguments? I don't get it.

I made it clear what my background presumption in this respect was. To be clearer: Do you or do you not interpret nothingness as equivalent to non-being in you're arguments, this as I've explicitly stated I so far assume you do (with emphasis on this being an assumption)? Else do you take non-existence to be something other than non-being? If so, how are the two concepts different to you? — javra

First time when I came across the concept "Absolute Nothingness", I was like so many other folks here, it is an illogical concept, doesn't make sense, blah blah and tried to disregard it. But when I thought it more, I found it actually quite an interesting concept. It can be used to cover, or explain many things beyond we take as existence.

As I said in the previous post, that one of the philosophical aims is about widening, deepening and enriching one's perceptual capabilities. The concept like this will help us to achieve that, and it is worthwhile in keep thinking over trying to come up with some logical proof that it can make sense.

I have not thought about the case where Absolute Nothingness can be linked to Absolute Non-being. But I think it is an interesting concept too. More later~

I made it clear what my background presumption in this respect was. To be clearer: Do you or do you not interpret nothingness as equivalent to non-being in you're arguments, this as I've explicitly stated I so far assume you do (with emphasis on this being an assumption)? Else do you take non-existence to be something other than non-being? If so, how are the two concepts different to you?

There is no one correct answer here. But the answer you provide will have significant baring on how the issue of nothingness is commonly addressed. — javra

I think Absolute Nothingness can be interpreted as a property of Non-being too. Every being is not just a being, but it also encompasses its origin (which is the past of the being), and the future in it. All beings were non-being at one time, but one day and moment, it manifested into a being by some causal conditions either physical or mental.

Every being which is a human does think about the existence prior to their birth, and also the possible existence after their life in the actual world.

Also non-being, absolute non-being can be used for different levels of beliefs in one's own existence.

The current existence as a living being in the actual world would be a being. This is a belief and also a fact.

But when one believes in the existence of past life, and afterlife, then the existence could be named as non-being. One has lived in the past or existed as some other being in the past before birth, but there were changes of the being via change of time, or some event, the being in the past has gone through transformation to non-being. Then the current being has come to existence.

When the current being dies the physical death after the course of life, then the current existence will cease to exist. In that case, what does the being become? A non-being. A non-being is a being that has no physical body, but the soul still intact as a Cartesian substance, being invisible and unable to communicate with the livings due to lack of the bodily existence, but still able to be present in the actual world having all the mental states intact perceiving, knowing and feeling just as a non-being, if one believed in afterlife and has faith in the existence of souls. Concepts of non-being could be useful to attribute the possible existence to it.

If one had absolute no belief in the existence of possible non-beings, then for them their prior existence and afterlife existence would be Absolute Nothingness. It would be something one never experiences in real life, but presumed, or inferred existence. Or non-existence, if one wants to call it. But there is no reason why one cannot call it an existence too.

Because an isolated empty space occurs relative to givens, such as its surroundings, and is thereby not absolute nothingness. (absolute does mean complete without exceptions).

As to the video you've linked to, it seems to me to pose a trick question from the get-go. By the very concept initially specified in the video, an "absolute empty space" (whose very cogency my addressed contention questions) cannot contain a bucket of water, never mind distant galaxies and starts, for the occurrence of any of these things would make it other than an absolute, i.e. a literally complete, empty space. Besides, Newtonian conceptions of absolute space have been debunked some time ago by the theory of relativity, no? — javra

Absolute Nothingness is a useful concept to use in explaining the existence of Absolute space, or relative space which is absolute. A relative space can be made into space which is totally empty with no particles of air, and in total vacuum state could be called an absolute relative space.

It could sound contradictory, but then if we think about the case where we call the planet of venus morning star or evening star depending on when you see it, why not? It is just a matter of widening one's understanding of the concept in conjunction with the object, be it physical or mental nature.

And the distance-less space you mentioned is also quite an interesting concept I feel. Distance is only possible when there are objects in space, or some markers for the measurements to take place between them. In absolute space with no objects in it, distance would not exist or be meaningless.

That's perfectly fine, but I want to point out that my post, or else contention, was in the form of a question, and not in the form of an argument one then can agree with or disagree with: Again, in what sense can space occur, and thereby be, in the complete absence of distance(s) between givens? — javra

I am not very knowledgeable on QM, and QM is not my first interest in my readings, but I feel that for the whole universe to exist, there must have been absolute space first. Without absolute space as absolute nothingness, no physical objects, motions or changes are possible. Time itself is from changes of the objects, hence without space there are no motions, no changes hence no time would be possible either.

Kant was quite right in establishing Space and Time as dual entities in human perception of the world as the precondition for the possibility of experience. Space is definitely physical. It exists outside of the human mind, but it also exists in the mind as a priori condition for visual perception and experience.

Absolute nothingness can be a priori concept which denotes the prior state of the universe before it was born, or the aftermath of existence of the universe, if it ends in some future time as a deduced entity or state, which has been existence and will keep existing through eternity.

A handy concept in your pocket to explain the possible state of the universe before and after its existence.

The issue here needs to deal with dualism in some form. The OP states that the problem is oxymoronic. Absolute Nothingness would be true and untrue at the same time, a contradiction.

Introducing a dualist form will resolve this:

Physical brain; (Absolute Nothingness)

So physically and conceptually we have two categories. The physical is what we observe as something and Absolute Nothingness (as mental content) is a concept.

If you don't like dualism don't worry. In this form the dualism is just an expansion of physicalism.

If I were writing the title I would call it,

Absolute Nothingness is only possible from the perspective of something'.

The something being the perspective of our brains.

Thank you for the relatively in-depth reply.

But when one believes in the existence of past life, and afterlife, then the existence could be named as non-being. One has lived in the past or existed as some other being in the past before birth, but there were changes of the being via change of time, or some event, the being in the past has gone through transformation to non-being. Then the current being has come to existence. — Corvus

The semantics the two of us use for being and non-being are significantly different. Because of this, I think we would be talking past each other in using these terms, and, by extension, the notion of nothingness. For one example, to me, iff ghosts were to be real and not merely constructs of some humans’ imaginations, then I would label ghosts as spirits or souls that hold actual being in the cosmos. This rather than labeling ghosts as non-beings (noun) or else expressing that they do not hold actual being (in verb form) in the cosmos. I’d hold the same for past lives and afterlives. So, in my use of words, neither ghosts, nor past lives, nor afterlives would pertain to nothingness or else nonbeing. And I would instead affirm that all these are different forms of being.

But again, this is more an issue of how we express ourselves rather than the content which we intend to express. Its just that without uniformity in the former, it is difficult toward impossible to find agreement on the latter.

I am not very knowledgeable on QM, and QM is not my first interest in my readings, but I feel that for the whole universe to exist, there must have been absolute space first. Without absolute space as absolute nothingness, no physical objects, motions or changes are possible. Time itself is from changes of the objects, hence without space there are no motions, no changes hence no time would be possible either. — Corvus

As a technical detail of the theory of relativity via which any linear model of the universe can be established (a linear model here being one in which the universe had an absolute beginning that progresses toward an absolute end), neither time nor space occurred prior to the Big Bang. The here assumed gravitational singularity from which the Big Bang is stated to have occurred is affirmed to be spaceless—this because space, just as much as time, becomes meaningless in a gravitational singularity. In the linear model just described, then, both space and time are stated to have started only upon this cosmically singular, initial gravitational singularity’s explosion, this being the Big Bang. As reference:

A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when". Gravitational singularities exist at a junction between general relativity and quantum mechanics; therefore, the properties of the singularity cannot be described without an established theory of quantum gravity. Trying to find a complete and precise definition of singularities in the theory of general relativity, the current best theory of gravity, remains a difficult problem.[1][2]

[…]

Modern theory asserts that the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.[7] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

But again, I myself would label this initial singularity as something rather than as nothing(ness).

So that its known, rather than a linear model of the cosmos, I instead favor what could in summation be termed a cyclical model of the cosmos, a Big Bounce rather than a Big Bang as the labels go, which can also be established via the theory of relativity.

A handy concept in your pocket to explain the possible state of the universe before and after its existence. — Corvus

I can very much see this application for any linear model of the universe (as previously described). But again, I'm one to favor a more cyclical model of the universe and, because of this, I personally don't find use for this notion of before and after the universe's being.

For those going in different directions on this question I suspect the OP wasn't in the proper form to begin with as he calls it oxymoronic and contradictory. So something is wrong here from the start.

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

Again I am not too familiar with Buddhism, but Absolute Nothingness can be a useful resource or concept for the Buddhists for their aim of of meditation in endeavour to achieve the state of Nirvana.

Wiki has some synoptic info on Nirvana "Nirvana is the goal of many Buddhist paths, and marks the soteriological release from worldly suffering and rebirths in saṃsāra.[2][3] Nirvana is part of the Third Truth on "cessation of dukkha" in the Four Noble Truths,[2] and the "summum bonum of Buddhism and goal of the Eightfold Path."[3]"

Nirvana has also been claimed by some scholars to be identical with anatta (non-self) and sunyata (emptiness) states though this is hotly contested by other scholars and practicing monks.[web 1][7][8][9][10] In time, with the development of the Buddhist doctrine, other interpretations were given, such as the absence of the weaving (vana) of activity of the mind,[11] the elimination of desire, and escape from the woods, cq. the five skandhas or aggregates." - Wiki on Nirvana

This makes sense, because Buddhists believe the human sufferings come from the bodily nature and desires of the beings. The only way to achieve the freedom is after the time of the being's death. However, the beings don't want to die just to achieve the freedom from suffering. Instead, they can try to separate their bodies from minds via meditation aiming to achieve the absolute emptiness, viz Absolute Nothingness, which could be construed as the state of body-less with only the mind existing in the actual world.

Not saying, Absolute Nothingness is an officially proved concept for representing all these cases, but certainly it seems a useful concept to keep in one's pocket when thinking or explaining about the abstract objects and concepts in metaphysics, logic, physics or even religious topics.

For those going in different directions on this question I suspect the OP wasn't in the proper form to begin with as he calls it oxymoronic and contradictory. — Mark Nyquist

Well, to affirm that, "nothingness once was" is a contradiction in terms when nothingness is equated to nonbeing.

The term "was" is the past tense of "to be". Hence, the affirmation then claims that there in the past was a time when "lack-of-any-type-of-being held a type of being". Which can be logically contradictory contingent on semantics: At the same time and in the same respect, both a) nothing is/was (entailed by lack of any type of being) and b) something is/was (entailed by their being or once being a state of nothingness).

The only contention here would be if this is strictly due to our linguistic constraints of speech which do not accurately capture metaphysical possibilities or, else, whether our linguistics accurately conveys a logical contradiction in any such metaphysics.

aiming to achieve the absolute emptiness, viz Absolute Nothingness, — Corvus

Again, our semantics are too different for me to engage in meaningful discussions with you on this particular topic. But I will point out that there is a distinction in Buddhism between annihilation (which I would again myself term nonbeing) and Nirvana as absolute bliss (which I would myself term being and, hence, not nothingness).

In annihilation, there is no bliss to be had; in Nirvana, however, this absolute bliss does occur.

Again, our semantics are too different for me to engage in meaningful discussions with you on this particular topic. — javra

OK, that's fair enough. I tried to explain what I think and understand of the concept. As I said, initially it was not a logical concept to me to accept. But after thinking about it second time, it seems actually a very useful concept to further work on. I am glad that I have the concept, and will be further studying the cases, which it could be applied to.

Because I care about philosophy, and would like to see it done well. — Banno

I care about people. I also realize that you are expressing your views, not facts. But I further know that you may see things differently to me, and I can respect that. I personally would be a lot more mindful of being understanding towards others, but everyone is different.

None of which changes the fact that the posts here are mostly rubbish.

For reasons given.

None of which changes the fact that the posts here are mostly rubbish. — Banno

'Rubbish' in your opinion. You're getting confused between opinion and fact.

Banno is uniquely immune to caring about anything but destructive (in the literary sense) critique "hereabouts" (not sure he knows "here" is adequate). I don't think he's going to be partial to this kind of appeal.
I'd leave him to it.

Who's opinion ought I express, if not my own?

There was a bit more than mere expression of an opinion involved. I brought both Wittgenstein and Austin in to play - mostly unrecognised; pointed out that 'nothing" is not inconceivable; corrected some misunderstandings to do with Newton and Einstein; critiqued some misconceived Platonism; explained a lost joke and apparently pissed off a Kiwi.

Not a bad result.

Is there something of substance we could discuss here? Or is it to remain puerile?

I'll go over the key point again: the OP and the bulk of responses reify a piece of grammar. Prefixing "absolute" compounds the error.

Edit: I'll add a bit of nice: behind the OP is a bit of wisdom - "nothing" only makes sense against a background of "something".

Who's opinion ought I express, if not my own? — Banno

Of course you should express your own opinion. I am a big believer in everyone having a right to their own opinions :) But, I was just pointing out that it was just that: an opinion, not a fact.

But, I was just pointing out that it was just that: an opinion, not a fact. — Beverley

Hm...

How do you go about telling these two apart? What is fact, what is opinion?

Maybe there is some hope for this thread.

Banno is uniquely immune to caring about anything but destructive (in the literary sense) critique "hereabouts" (not sure he knows "here" is adequate). I don't think he's going to be partial to this kind of appeal.
I'd leave him to it. — AmadeusD

I think you might be right there.

Who's opinion ought I express, if not my own?
— Banno

Of course you should express your own opinion — Beverley

Oops, silly me, I missed off the most important thing... in my view: there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of expressing one's own opinion though.

apparently pissed off a Kiwi. — Banno

I'm Irish - but you should be so lucky. Hehe. However, that does explain your comportment :sweat: Aiming to piss people off sits well with it.