As long as you have arguments with possibly some evidence, we are interested in looking into the ideas. — Corvus
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
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
Because I care about philosophy, and would like to see it done well. — Banno
Please back your statement up by clarifying and defining what "to exist" means.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
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.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
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.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
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.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
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.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
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
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
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
A handy concept in your pocket to explain the possible state of the universe before and after its existence. — Corvus
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.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
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
aiming to achieve the absolute emptiness, viz Absolute Nothingness, — Corvus
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.Again, our semantics are too different for me to engage in meaningful discussions with you on this particular topic. — javra
Because I care about philosophy, and would like to see it done well. — Banno
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.