Does Nothing Truly Exist or Is It Imaginary?

[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.

 

[disregardthat]

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

the point here is how to you get rid of a empty space.there is nothing to get rid of.

Yes, I agree. Space and time are necessary faculties of the mind, we cannot think as "there" being no space or time. We can imagine empty space, a still timeframe, but we cannot separate us from the notion of space and time.

 

[latter]

perhaps you should re read it .theres no playing.you might enjoy it.
or please tell me the mistake i have made word play means nothing

 

[disregardthat]

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

The universe is not expanding into empty area. The observable universe expands at the speed of light. The observable universe at some point for some observer is defined as the area from which something traveling at the speed of light could have had time to reach the observer. This is not the entire universe (which may or may not be infinite) because of inflation, that is, that space itself is expanding, even now. But that does not mean that what's beyond is empty, it's presumably approximately the same as here.

 

[DaveC426913]

perhaps you should re read it .theres no playing.you might enjoy it.
or please tell me the mistake i have made word play means nothing

something, empty, nothing

These are all words that are very ill-defined (mostly, they're defined in terms of each other), and thus mean nothing when strung together, for example:

"a empty area is the same as nothing"

This is just playing with words. Without defining nothing, you cannot claim that it is the same as empty. The same can be applied to most of your other statements.

Since the topic-at-hand is determining if there's nothing there, you can't define it as such then turn around and use your definition as proof. That's circular logic. Word play.

 

[latter]

Yes, I agree. Space and time are necessary faculties of the mind, we cannot think as "there" being no space or time. We can imagine empty space, a still timeframe, but we cannot separate us from the notion of space and time.

the point here is before a universe.not about wether we in ours minds can do it now.you miss the point the point is can we get rid of a empty area /nothing.before the universe can we do it if ther is nothing in the area what is there to get rid of.
so the question is is nothing a area?
i have said it can be.

 

[latter]

something, empty, nothing

These are all words are very ill-defined (mostly, they're defined in terms of each other), and thus mean nothing when strung together, for example:

"a empty area is the same as nothing"

This is just playing with words. Without defining nothing, you cannot claim that it is the same as empty. The same can be applied to most of your other statements.

Since the topic-at-hand is determining if there's nothing there, you can't define it as such then turn around and use your definition as proof. That's circular logic. Word play.

can you imgaine a empty area.it has nothing in it.
your problem lies with understanding nothing as a area .you don't like me using that idea.yet
1 nothing is the absence of everything .(remmeber i am not claiming there is such a place possible,that is not the point here)
2 empty area has nothing in it.
3 so nothing is a empty area.
what is the problem with understanding these 3 points.

since the topic-at-hand is determining if there's nothing there, you can't define it as such then turn around and use your definition as proof. That's circular logic. Word play.

you can not tell me this without defining nothing yourself.
but you have .but i have made my definition clearer so let's see who,s right.

 

[disregardthat]

the point here is before a universe.not about wether we in ours minds can do it now.you miss the point the point is can we get rid of a empty area /nothing.before the universe can we do it if ther is nothing in the area what is there to get rid of.
so the question is is nothing a area?
i have said it can be.

The issue here is whether our minds can imagine the absence of every conceivable thing. Including space and time. You should try to write more clearly as I have problems understanding what you are saying. This has nothing to do with the actual universe.

 

[latter]

well my idea it does.weather our minds can is different idea i don't know who,s right.

the issue here is whether our minds can imagine the absence of every conceivable thing. Including space and time. You should try to write more clearly as I have problems understanding what you are saying. This has nothing to do with the actual universe.

how can our minds get rid of that .there would be a awareness(assuming all else can be stopped). now do you count awareness to be a conceivable thing?.if you do you would have to get rid of that.and then we might as well not envolve humans .cos there would be no experence .

my langauage is trebblie.i really am sorry I am very iractic person .

 

[Math Is Hard]

This has degraded into the incomprehensible. I may try to clean up later. The OP was incredibly vague, but there have been many good replies.