Nothing exists, is contradictory.

[Crackpot]

The thought and the thinker are one unified paradoxical duality.

Can thought exist without the physical presence we call a thinker? I don't think so. But neither can it exist without the environment in which the thinker exists, any more than a reflection can exist without a mirror and an object, or an electric light without a bulb and a current. Any thought—including this one—is a function of a web of a phenomena rather than the product of an independent entity. We can say, "so-and-so thought such-and-such" in daily conversation, but such a statement is really just a matter of convention

An example universe may make this idea clear.

• 
  Absolutely everything is the thinker

• 
  Absolutely nothing is the thought

• 
  Since there are only two absolutes, Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Everything, all else is relative and will change

• 
  This universe has a tendency for all in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity and/or complete active randomness.

• 
  The fact that the thought and the thinker are complete opposites causes them to be in a cyclical system where they go from inert uniformity to complete randomness repeatedly.

• 
  When the thinker is as close to a state of inert uniformity as it can get. The thought attempts to create a way to break the cycle, i.e. Stop the world I want off! I call this the “Intelligent Design” phase of this universe.

• 
  When the thought is as close to an active random state as it can get the thinker attempts to unify the cycle, i.e. May the circle be unbroken! I call this the “Intelligent De-evolution” phase of this universe.

• 
  The term “Big Bang” would be a misnomer in this universe. The initial thought, “Intelligent Design”, in a particular cycle would cause an unbridled rush to a state where active randomness exists. This would then stabilize, (the start of real time in this universe), because the “Intelligent Design” would in and of itself be non random.

• 
  This universe would produce gravity by establishing a link between everything and nothing, (the non absolute versions, which would be relative). A gravity particle consists of nothing, (not Absolutely Nothing), as its basic unit. The gravity particle in this universe would be very hard to detect.

• 
  Etc… etc… etc…

 

[Philocrat]

An example universe may make this idea clear.

• 
  Absolutely everything is the thinker

• 
  Absolutely nothing is the thought

• 
  Since there are only two absolutes, Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Everything, all else is relative and will change

• 
  
  But there are those who think that 'Nothing' (be it absolute or its variant) is 'Something'. Is this correct? Things get even spookier when people try to establish a relation between the two.
  
  
  

  This universe has a tendency for all in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity and/or complete active randomness.

• 
  The fact that the thought and the thinker are complete opposites causes them to be in a cyclical system where they go from inert uniformity to complete randomness repeatedly.

• 
  When the thinker is as close to a state of inert uniformity as it can get. The thought attempts to create a way to break the cycle, i.e. Stop the world I want off! I call this the “Intelligent Design” phase of this universe.

• 
  When the thought is as close to an active random state as it can get the thinker attempts to unify the cycle, i.e. May the circle be unbroken! I call this the “Intelligent De-evolution” phase of this universe.

There is also the problem as to whether other 'Metaphysical Categories' exist other than 'Matter'. Do such metaphysical categories as Nothing, Something, Matter, Mind, Person etc exist? For there is a growing tendency that Matter is an illusive 'Self-categorising Entity'. Or is it? This gets even more so when there is a sudden realisation that matter is irreducible to anything else but iteself, hence it is inconcievable that it should initiate, let alone maintain, any causal relations with any other metaphysical category such as 'Nothing' that is often pursued and implied in the sciences such as physics.

The term “Big Bang” would be a misnomer in this universe. The initial thought, “Intelligent Design”, in a particular cycle would cause an unbridled rush to a state where active randomness exists. This would then stabilize, (the start of real time in this universe), because the “Intelligent Design” would in and of itself be non random. [/list]

• 
  This universe would produce gravity by establishing a link between everything and nothing, (the non absolute versions, which would be relative). A gravity particle consists of nothing, (not Absolutely Nothing), as its basic unit. The gravity particle in this universe would be very hard to detect.

Worst still, the 'BIG BANG-BIG CRUNCH' picture of the universe currently implied in the cosmological physics creates a nasty and almost senseless CIRCULARISM ...big bang...big crunch big bang ...big crunch .ad infinituum! Is science in general as we know it predicting a Senseless Reality or am I missing out something?

 

[jsg]

Absolutely.

 

[loseyourname]

Anyone find it ironic to some extent that we're still discussing this? The proposition that the statement "nothing exists" is self-contradictory was the basis of Parmenides' system of metaphysics, the third western philosopher that we have any record of, over 2500 years ago.