Does Nothing Truly Exist or Is It Imaginary?

[Dremmer]

Or is it imaginary like unicorns and fairies?

 

[Evo]

Or is it imaginary like unicorns and fairies?

If there was nothing, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

 

[Oldfart]

Or is it imaginary like unicorns and fairies?

Good question! At least in a physical sense, not mathematically, as in I have nothing in the bank. Seems like anything with a property is something, like empty space, which can be curved and is somehow mixed with time. If it can be argued that time is mixed with or somehow affects everything, then "nothing" would be impossible, right?

One possible nothing is the "void" that the Big Bang expanded into. There appears to have been no such void, as all of space and the universe was, I'm told, contained within the BB's evelope. It kind of makes my brain hurt, but I can barely visulize the BB expanding into nothing, a non-existent void. Though, of course, this puts nothing in the same universe as unicorns and fairies...

OF

 

[turbo]

There is a very nice collection of essays in book form. It is titled "The Philosophy of Vacuum." Chapters One and Two are from Einstein and Penrose. Slackers, both.

 

[G037H3]

There is a very nice collection of essays in book form. It is titled "The Philosophy of Vacuum." Chapters One and Two are from Einstein and Penrose. Slackers, both.

Penrose is way cooler than Einstein. ._.

 

[Upisoft]

If there was nothing, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

I'm very afraid when the nothingness is where the brain must be. Especially if the parts that deal with guilt and remorse are missing.

And, Dreammer, the unicorns and fairies are quite real form my 4-year-old son.

 

[Siv]

The concept exists.

 

[alemsalem]

i think it depends on your perspective,, i mean you can open a box and find there is nothing in it but there is air in it and there is light in it but these are not the things you were looking for,, i guess that's the original human concept of nothing.
when you try to extend it to the less familiar "nothingness of everything" well,, i just get lost

 

[arildno]

In his "Wissenschaft der Logik", the philosopher Hegel made the point that the pure abstraction "Pure Being", i.e, the so-called end result of abstracting away all particularities of some existence would be indistibguishable from its supposed anti-thesis "Pure Nothing".

What would really be the distinguishing feature between them? Nothing..at all!

The point here is not the mystical union of opposites, but that only determinate existences are meaningful to talk about; i.e, those existences that are specified by SOME qualities of being, and NOT by others.

Since this is the philosophy forum, I'll hazard a speculation on what this might entail for the natural science, and its program for reductionism.

What would the "final equation be"?

In my view, it can be stated already:
Being=Being.

Which is about as meaningful as
Nothing=Nothing.

Meaningfulness will only appear in the shape of a fundamental <i>conservation law</i>, in which empirically distinguishable, yet theoretically similar quantities wil be related in a con serving manner (i.e, that symmetry between them will always be maintained, or their sun total always is equal).

And thus, even in the final <i>useful</i> equation, there will be internal distinctions, but these distinctions will, in a rational, hierarchical manner be seen to be less fundamental than the preserved fundamental quantity.

And that quantity can equally well be called "Pure Being" as "Pure Nothing".

The real "trick" is to find out what are the sufficiently distinguishable, sufficiently similar quantities whose sum total can legitimately be called "Pure Being"

 

[wuliheron]

There's an ancient Chinese poem found in the Tao Te Ching that actually predates the text:

Tools
Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is moulded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.

Note that what does not exist in the poem is relative to what does. The hole in the wheel might be filled with the axle and the hole in the wall might be filled with a door, but what is missing or empty is defined relative to the wheel and walls themselves.

This kind of relative perspective can be extended to the concepts of existence and nonexistence themselves. Thus "existence" and "nonexistence" can be treated as relative terms just like "up" and "down". When we say something is "up" or "down" we have to be specific about what that means. For me up is very different than it might be for someone on the opposite side of the Earth or for an astronaut in orbit.

The same is evidently true for exists and does not exist. If I say "Unicorns do not exist" it only has meaning in specific contexts. For example, obviously unicorns exist as a myth and a concept, but don't exist as something I can see in the zoo.

 

[Maui]

Is there such thing as nothing?

Unconsciousness?

 

[Boy@n]

If there would only be somethingness (without nothingness), it would be like infinite solidness, no change could be possible.

In computer analogy it would be like having states of 1 without 0, while it's only possible to create data (text, pictures, video, music) with patterns of both 1 and 0 states.

Likewise, I'd say that somethingness and nothingness are fundamental building blocks of relative existence such as ours - ultimate Yin-Yang of existence.

 

[Skaffen]

If there would only be somethingness (without nothingness), it would be like infinite solidness, no change could be possible.

In computer analogy it would be like having states of 1 without 0, while it's only possible to create data (text, pictures, video, music) with patterns of both 1 and 0 states.

Likewise, I'd say that somethingness and nothingness are fundamental building blocks of relative existence such as ours - ultimate Yin-Yang of existence.

I concur, however I would term our Universe as the potential between the Yin/Yang. Distinct from but a product of. It seems the multi-verse theorists suggest there are infinite potential universes but ours is not so relegated. If they do 'co-exist' (multi verses) what separates them from us? - If it is conceivable then it is part of our Universe, if it is only potential (probability) it needs no explanation.

 

[Upisoft]

In computer analogy it would be like having states of 1 without 0, while it's only possible to create data (text, pictures, video, music) with patterns of both 1 and 0 states.

In computer terms 1 is something and 0 is another thing.

 

[Skaffen]

Langauge is a series of small absolutes (definitive by nature and necessity) we interpret/average in a timely manner and go about our business.

Nothing is an absolute. Philosophically, Infinity is an absolute (everything). Both of these states cannot change and retain their 'identity'. Einstein told us our Universe is Relative, and sure enough even Science only provides theories...beautiful, beautiful theories...but never Truth.

Yin or Yang are not the object of meditation, the boundary between, the place where they are balanced is where the potential/tension exists. Examining the interaction between them leads us to the most pertinent aspects of their nature as well as consideration for the environmental forces that separate/define them.

Einstein saw that the Universe had to reconcile to all reference frames, in so doing he was illustrating each boundary between frames is the regulating mechanism..or where the mechanism exists.

There are only 2 Absolutes (Nothing:Infinity), neither exists in our Universe and both are boringly unchanging anyways. I would only consider them as boundaries to our Universe, as such they will always be beyond reach intellectually as well as observationally.

Disclaimer: The above only serves to offer a context, any assertions are mine own and are highly questionable.

 

[Upisoft]

but never Truth.

Well I disagree. There can be a lot of absolute things. The only requirement will be they are not related to anything else. Thus we can't learn or study them, as this action will constitute adding a relation between us and them. Nor they can do anything to us, or they will stop to be absolute and will become related to us.

It is funny how if anything absolute exists it also must remain absolutely isolated from everything else.

 

[baywax]

Or is it imaginary like unicorns and fairies?

wuliheron has directed us to what I think is the best exploration of the dichotomy between the compliments of existence and non-existence. In the poem from the Tao Te Ching it is demonstrated that without the space for something to exist it cannot do so. This is also explained in the depiction of the "Yin Yang" symbol where balance must be maintained for any system to remain in existence.
http://www.pathsofdevotion.com/_wizardimages/yin_yang.jpg

Another, more modern version of this concept comes from the American Icon, Doris Day...

"You can't have one without the other".

 

[yoda jedi]

"no existence"

 

[SW VandeCarr]

"no existence"

"Nothing" only makes sense in a given context. Mathematically it is x = |0|. If one gives a context, such as a bank account balance, it has a clear meaning. In physics, its meaning also depends on context. A photon has zero rest mass. The true vacuum contains no massive particles. However a vacuum is not "nothing" in other contexts. It has properties and is permeated by energy flux. If the context is spacetime, then "nothing" means the absence of spacetime. As far as I know, this is only a theoretical concept in physics..

 

[apeiron]

It is funny how if anything absolute exists it also must remain absolutely isolated from everything else.

This is a good argument against their "existence" then. The other way of viewing absolutes is as limits or bounds. So they become the very things that cannot in fact ever exist (but which can be endlessly approached).

And metaphysics finds that such absolutes (ie: bounding limit states) always come in pairs. Dichotomies. Such as the classic ones of chance~necessity, stasis~flux, substance~form, part~whole, atom~void, discrete~continuous, etc.

Nothing and infinite would make another such complementary pair.

As a further step in metaphysical reasoning, it can be argued that limits are end states - they are what develop as pure possibility separates in its various opposing directions.

So in the "beginning", there is neither nothing nor the infinite (as these are properly end states - in the future of what develops). Instead there is a vagueness, unformed potential, which is neither a nothing nor an infinity, just the unbroken potential to move towards these extremes.

Then this symmetry breaks and both nothingness (the void) and infinity (a void of endless size) can "exist" (as limits to a process of symmetry breaking).

 

[yoda jedi]

"Nothing" only makes sense in a given context. Mathematically it is x = |0|. If one gives a context, such as a bank account balance, it has a clear meaning. In physics, its meaning also depends on context. A photon has zero rest mass. The true vacuum contains no massive particles. However a vacuum is not "nothing" in other contexts. It has properties and is permeated by energy flux. If the context is spacetime, then "nothing" means the absence of spacetime. As far as I know, this is only a theoretical concept in physics..

in this contex:
here a
... PHYSICS FORUM.

 

[yoda jedi]

so in the "beginning", there is neither nothing nor the infinite (as these are properly end states - in the future of what develops). Instead there is a vagueness, unformed potential, which is neither a nothing nor an infinity, just the unbroken potential to move towards these extremes.

right !

 

[Kentoro]

I have an idea that even Yin and Yang are not opposites per se. They can be depending on the perspective, but with a wider view, they can be the same. Fire and water. Although different elements, they have the same uses and again different uses. They can both be used to sustain life, they can both be used to distinguish life. Neither can destroy each other only change each other into something else. Most things that I ponder on can be applied the same way. Nothingness mixed with everything gets what? In the end they are just words that were used to give an idea a value. If you understand that you cannot "know" anything, is it possible that there is no such thing as to "know". Therefore you may "know" everything since know = 0. Your mind = 0. I just over analyzed myself into a coma. I am going to go eat lol.

 

[Maui]

In the words of a solipsist:

- Is there such a thing as something?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

In the words of a solipsist:

- Is there such a thing as something?

If you accept that something exists and can also accept the absence of that something, then you have a context for saying nothing exists.

 

[apeiron]

If you accept that something exists and can also accept the absence of that something, then you have a context for saying nothing exists.

And then in turn, the only way to have the existence of both (some)thing and its context is for the pair to form a mutual or complementary dichotomy.

Each has to become the other's context, so that each can exist.

So the idea of nothing - an absence of things - demands a context of thingness to be an acceptable possibility. And when you look at it from the other angle, you have to say that an absence of nothing is equally much a part of this deal. So in turn, this yields the counter-idea of everythingness, or infinity.

There is the absence of thingness, and the absence of absence. Together, they are the boundary limits on what is in fact possible. Reality lies within the two extremes.

 

[baywax]

And then in turn, the only way to have the existence of both (some)thing and its context is for the pair to form a mutual or complementary dichotomy.

Each has to become the other's context, so that each can exist.

So the idea of nothing - an absence of things - demands a context of thingness to be an acceptable possibility. And when you look at it from the other angle, you have to say that an absence of nothing is equally much a part of this deal. So in turn, this yields the counter-idea of everythingness, or infinity.

There is the absence of thingness, and the absence of absence. Together, they are the boundary limits on what is in fact possible. Reality lies within the two extremes.

Thusly I have quoted Doris Day... you can't have one without the other...

Further to that one cannot denote an "illusion' or that all that is perceived is an "illusion" because this demands that there is a benchmark or compliment to "illusion" in order to recognize it as being an illusion. Which begs the question, what is the opposite or compliment to an illusion?

 

[yoda jedi]

from nothing -> nothing.

 

[apeiron]

Which begs the question, what is the opposite or compliment to an illusion?

Well, if awareness of reality is an "illusion" (and I accept that it is a model) then there are well behaved and utilitarian illusions like my waking consciousness, and inconsistent, non-functional illusions like my dreams (and the psychoses of others).

But functional and not-functional are not really a complementary pair, just a simple local negation.

Complementary pairs take a stricter local~global symmetry breaking form. So for example, we can properly make a distinction between a global model and its local measurements. The more general and successful the model, the smaller and more particular are the measurements needed to confirm it.

So if consciousness is a running model of the world, then it barely needs checking when successful. And this turns out to be the way the brain works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

Illusions are faulty brain predictions that are in much need of recalibration.

 

[baywax]

Illusions are faulty brain predictions that are in much need of recalibration.

This I would completely agree with. Illusions are mistakes in perception that require correction for survival to continue.

 

[baywax]

from nothing -> nothing.

With no reference point (nothing) it is impossible to go "from".

 

[yoda jedi]

With no reference point (nothing) it is impossible to go "from".

right.

double shot to nothing.

 

[baywax]

right.

double shot to nothing.

agreed... piss'n the night away!

 

[baywax]

This post contains a high content of irony:

Is there such thing as nothing?

 

[Newai]

Nothing does not exist.

 

[baywax]

Nothing does not exist.

Literally and logically you are correct to say this. However, "nothing" does exist as a concept, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it. Whatever the minute weight of the electricity generated by the neurological concept of "nothing" is, it has a real presence in existence.

 

[Newai]

Literally and logically you are correct to say this. However, "nothing" does exist as a concept, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it. Whatever the minute weight of the electricity generated by the neurological concept of "nothing" is, it has a real presence in existence.

Because it is being discussed, it exists? As a concept, sure. But the nothingness is not a concept in itself. You can not give reality to anything, even by bringing a concept into our reality. It either exists or not, regardless of anyone discussing it.

 

[latter]

the problem i see is in Einsteins. expanding space there is a implicit idea hidden.that space must be made of something.that means that when it expands enough if there is nothing in the back ground then gaps would appear .or the space is made of something that is CONTINUOUS. ,ie:it can not be particles or strings these have gaps,
also there are 2 views of nothing that people use the one before the bigbang.when there was literally no space(or empty area).so when the bigbang happened it created space but did not expand into nothing(as in a empty area)
that is the second view nothing as a empty area.
the trouble here is. Is if we try to say there was no empty area before the big bang we run up against a problem,because you can not get rid of a empty area.
remmeber space is something it must be to expand.you can not get rid of a empty area there's nothing to get rid of.therefore space must be expanding into a empty area.which is nothing.
. .

what you have to get in your head is nothing is exactly the same as a empty area there is no difference.
so if you say there is no empty area then everything must be made of a CONTINUOUS kind of matter that can have no gaps going back to a empty area.behind it.
so you can foget about strings unless they all fit togehter nicely.with absolutely no gaps .

 

[baywax]

Because it is being discussed, it exists? As a concept, sure. But the nothingness is not a concept in itself. You can not give reality to anything, even by bringing a concept into our reality. It either exists or not, regardless of anyone discussing it.

I suppose I'd have to say that "the concept of 'nothing" exists' whereas the actual non-event of nothing does not. The concept of unicorns exists whereas unicorns do not, according to current data.

 

[Newai]

I suppose I'd have to say that "the concept of 'nothing" exists' whereas the actual non-event of nothing does not. The concept of unicorns exists whereas unicorns do not, according to current data.

Which is where I started. :)

And since it does not exist, why would people bother discussing it at all? What can be done with it?

 

[baywax]

Which is where I started. :)

And since it does not exist, why would people bother discussing it at all? What can be done with it?

About as much as can be done with any concept. For instance, "zero" could be construed to mean the same as "nothing". Zero is a very handy concept to mathematicians...

Zero, written 0, is both a number[1] and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It plays a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems. In the English language, 0 may be called zero, nought or (US) naught (both pronounced /ˈnɔːt/), nil, or "o". Informal or slang terms for zero include zilch and zip.[2] Ought or aught (both pronounced /ˈɔːt/), have also been used.[3]

Another handy dandy concept is "infinity" but, like "zero" it is very hard to prove it exists beyond the concept stage.

 

[FlexGunship]

[Is there such a thing as nothing?]

Yes, and I keep it between my ears.

And since it does not exist, why would people bother discussing it at all? What can be done with it?

To argue that the concept describes a non-existent thing is fine. But to extrapolate that this means that discussion about it offers no merit is quite different. Here is a concrete example you can take home with you:

If I want to describe the absence of everything on a desk, I can do it two ways:

• There are no staplers, nor pens, nor computers, nor paper, nor staple removes, nor stables, nor mugs, nor cables, nor dirt, nor other papers, nor magazines, nor books, nor larger mugs, nor velociprators, nor self-destruct buttons, nor pencil erasers, nor...
• There's nothing on the desk

While both seek to explain the same condition, one does so much more succinctly. Now, I ask you, is there any merit to the idea of "nothing"?

 

[FlexGunship]

Nothing does not exist.

And it's corollary: "everything does exist."

 

[Newai]

To argue that the concept describes a non-existent thing is fine. But to extrapolate that this means that discussion about it offers no merit is quite different. Here is a concrete example you can take home with you:

If I want to describe the absence of everything on a desk, I can do it two ways:

• There are no staplers, nor pens, nor computers, nor paper, nor staple removes, nor stables, nor mugs, nor cables, nor dirt, nor other papers, nor magazines, nor books, nor larger mugs, nor velociprators, nor self-destruct buttons, nor pencil erasers, nor...
• There's nothing on the desk

While both seek to explain the same condition, one does so much more succinctly. Now, I ask you, is there any merit to the idea of "nothing"?

I thought the original topic idea was about nothingness...

Is there such thing as nothing? Or is it imaginary like unicorns and fairies?

...which is quite different from a desk without office supplies.

 

[apeiron]

I thought the original topic idea was about nothingness...which is quite different from a desk without office supplies.

Correct. The absence of things is merely the absence of certain particulars. But the self-referential question here was about the absence of a universal.

 

[disregardthat]

How is Nothing defined in this context? In language nothing merely signifies the lack of the type of thing in question, not to all types of things. What is an "universal"?

 

[apeiron]

How is Nothing defined in this context? In language nothing merely signifies the lack of the type of thing in question, not to all types of things. What is an "universal"?

A universal is a generalisation. So if we can imagine the absence of things in particular (which we easily can) then can we imagine the absence of thingness in general.

Some people reply they can easily imagine there being absolutely nothing. Reality could have never even existed.

But philosophically (or even mathematically - as in set theory and the empty set) it is worth delving deeper. To definitely have no thing, there is the background implication that there is a place (a space and time) in which this lack of things fails to be present. To measure either a presence or an absence implies a reference frame of some kind. And this is where the difficulty lies.

To clarify further, the idea of complete absence, pure nothingness, would have to mean not just a lack of substantial things, but also a lack of formal things. Reality is composed of both substance and form. And while we can perhaps imagine a lack of the material that might have made a universe, can we just as easily imagine a non-existence that includes the non-existence of forms such triangles, fractals, 1+1=2, etc? Would mathematics still have to "exist" even if nothing substantial existed?

When you get how big the question really is, then you start to appreciate ideas like Peirce's logic of vagueness. It is a way to talk about "less than nothing", because vagueness neither clearly exists, nor fails to exist.

 

[yoda jedi]

I thought the original topic idea was about nothingness...which is quite different from a desk without office supplies.

well said.

 

[latter]

apeiron wrote
To definitely have no thing, there is the background implication that there is a place (a space and time) in which this lack of things fails to be present.

there would be no time unless time is some how a unrelated place.
and using the word space is where the real problem lies in all this.
as i have said if we follow Ensteins spacetime.we are lead to believe without us relizeing it,that we are believeing space is made of something.we don't relize yet we are believeing this.
now we have to versions of space in our minds.
1. a empty space
2.space which is made of something.
so when you say space i don't no which one you mean and more importantly do you!
because if you say space is a empty space then that is no longer compatable with Ensteins view.

apeiron wrote
Some people reply they can easily imagine there being absolutely nothing. Reality could have never even existed.

yes of course they can but what version are they imagineing.the one with nothing in it a empty space(or empty area),or the one where we try to get rid of that empty (area)space.
the point here is how do you get rid of a empty(area) space.there is nothing to get rid of.
so as i have pointed out our universe must be expanding into a empty area.
a empty area is the same as nothing
therfore there is such a thing as nothing.of course our language is not right to be able to say it because we implie nothing is a thing when it isnt.thats a problem of lanuage and not my logic as far as i can see.

 

[DaveC426913]

so as i have pointed out our universe must be expanding into a empty area.

The universe is not obliged to adhere to the conclusions of human wordplay.