- #31
baywax
Gold Member
- 2,156
- 1
from nothing -> nothing.
With no reference point (nothing) it is impossible to go "from".
from nothing -> nothing.
With no reference point (nothing) it is impossible to go "from".
right.
double shot to nothing.
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.
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.
Which is where I started. :)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?
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]
[Is there such a thing as nothing?]
And since it does not exist, why would people bother discussing it at all? What can be done with it?
Nothing does not exist.
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"?
...which is quite different from a desk without office supplies.Is there such thing as nothing? Or is it imaginary like unicorns and fairies?
I thought the original topic idea was about nothingness......which is quite different from a desk without office supplies.
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"?
I thought the original topic idea was about nothingness......which is quite different from a desk without office supplies.
there would be no time unless time is some how a unrelated place.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.
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.apeiron wrote
Some people reply they can easily imagine there being absolutely nothing. Reality could have never even existed.
The universe is not obliged to adhere to the conclusions of human wordplay.so as i have pointed out our universe must be expanding into a empty area.
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.
so as i have pointed out our universe must be expanding into a empty area.
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
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.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.
can you imgaine a empty area.it has nothing in it.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.
you can not tell me this with out defining nothing yourself.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.
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.
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 .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.