The problem of non-existence

  • #1
567
3
I will begin this thread with an example. Take "nothing" for example. It is defined as "non-existence" in short. Though the use of the word in common terms is more directed towards absence (which does not neccesarily signify non-existence...bare with me on those semantics...I can't help it). Anywho, some people who are on a more philosophical mindset might try to understand such a "state". Note, that doing so is futile. "Nothing" does not exist, therefore, it's pointless to try and acknowledge its existence.
And so my problem emerges. By saying that it is impossible for something that doesn't exist to exist, am I also saying that something that does not exist CAN not not exist?? :redface:

This has been bugging me for a full 48 hours. I am beginning (yes, just beginning) to think it is a rather pointless (oh deer, that would make it non existent! :surprise: ) problem, with no meaning whatsoever. I hope I'm wrong. :rolleyes:
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
"How can nothing exist, if nothing itself is something?" I think that's what your saying. I was actually thinking this the other day. My conclusion is that something always exists and nothing is just an exaggerated term created for the benefit of language and explaination.
 
  • #3
Egmont
Imparcticle said:
And so my problem emerges. By saying that it is impossible for something that doesn't exist to exist, am I also saying that something that does not exist CAN not not exist??
This situation is far more common than you might realize. The issue here is that you're dealing with a meaningless assertion - "nothing exists" or "nothing does not exist". You think both sentences have meaning, and therefore one of them must be true and the other false, but the fact is meaningless sentences can't be true or false. That's why they are meaningless.

A colleague at work just showed me a book about "time travel". Another meaningless concept. You can't travel through time, you can only travel through space - that's what the word "travel" means. But you get PhDs and Nobel laureates seriously considering whether a meaningless statement is true or false. So don't feel bad for doing it, you're in good company.
 
  • #4
1,944
0
Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. In other words, you can have a private meaning for such statements, but outside of a specific context it cannot be shared. The identity of these words is the issue, what does "nothing" and "exist" and "nonexistent" mean?

Outside of any specific context, all you can do is endlessly split semantic hairs, defining one word in terms of another and so one. This is exactly what you are doing, going in circles attempting to define one word in terms of another, while searching for a logical statement. Logic is merely another word, another concept, and without a specific context it too is meaningless.
 
  • #5
598
0
Imparcticle said:
I will begin this thread with an example. Take "nothing" for example. It is defined as "non-existence" in short. Though the use of the word in common terms is more directed towards absence (which does not neccesarily signify non-existence...bare with me on those semantics...I can't help it). Anywho, some people who are on a more philosophical mindset might try to understand such a "state". Note, that doing so is futile. "Nothing" does not exist, therefore, it's pointless to try and acknowledge its existence.
And so my problem emerges. By saying that it is impossible for something that doesn't exist to exist, am I also saying that something that does not exist CAN not not exist?? :redface:

This has been bugging me for a full 48 hours. I am beginning (yes, just beginning) to think it is a rather pointless (oh deer, that would make it non existent! :surprise: ) problem, with no meaning whatsoever. I hope I'm wrong. :rolleyes:
I am glad that you started this topic as a seperate thread, as this is precisely what I have been battling with everywhere else. That 'Nothing' exists goes against the very essence of critical and clear thinking. So many things have been said about this issue such that it becomes more and more confused. And these are just some of them:

1) That 'Nothing' esists or that there is such thing as 'Nothing'

2) That there is a clearly quantifiable relation between 'Nothing' and 'Something'

3) That 'Nothing' can give rise to 'Something' (that is, bring something into being)

4) That 'Something' can decline or change into 'Nothing'

But the most problematic aspect of all this is that it seems as if in all our declaratory, existential and explanatory claims in our natural language and in our day-to-day interactions with each other we are 'THINKING' that:


5) When something is invisible or unobservable that it is non-physical

6) When something is invisible or unobservable that it is non-existent


And so far everyone seems to be very sly about them and consequently systematically avoid them. Go to the metaphysical, philosophical, epistemolgical sections and see how people systematically avoid all these questions. I have been arguing all along that we should be brave and confront these questions head on. My Position has always been this:

1) There has never been and there will never be 'Nothing'

2) Since there is no 'Nothing' there is no natural clarifying relation between 'Something' and 'Nothing'

3) Since (1) and (2) are completely and wholly true 'Nothing' cannot give rise to Something, nor neither can anything which is Something decline or change into 'Nothing'.

4) Mathematics, Our natural Languages, and any other quatificational and declaratory aparatuses may very well make references to 'Nothing' and its realtion to 'Something', I argue that such references are fundamentally fictional and intellectually misleading.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
205
0
nothing does exist simply because if we have somthing, then there must be nothing, otherwise we would not know if there was somthing. in other words, it is like opposing entities. also if nothing didn't exist then we would have no knowledge of the sort, we would never be having this conversation. if nothing wasn't evident, we could not distinguish it, thus it would not exsit.
 
  • #7
567
3
Unicorns don't exist and yet, I can imagine such a thing and talk about it too. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

You bring up a good point, Rasine. Our ability to distinguish between existence and non-existence is profound, I think. It is like making an abstraction between numbers and objects.

A colleague at work just showed me a book about "time travel". Another meaningless concept. You can't travel through time, you can only travel through space - that's what the word "travel" means. But you get PhDs and Nobel laureates seriously considering whether a meaningless statement is true or false. So don't feel bad for doing it, you're in good company.
As wuliheron pointed out, "the identity of the words is the issue". "Time travel" is just a figure of speech used to identify travel (yes, as you said) through space. As Einstein showed in his theories of Relativity, space and time are very much related. So if you take the simple concept underlying wormholes--aka Einstein-Rosen bridges, i think---, if the distance from point "A" to point "B" can be decreased by "folding" the space between, it would take less time to go from point "A" to point "B".



Thank you everyone for clearing this up for me.
 
  • #8
187
0
We think we understand zero or nothing till we begin to think about it and find it to be something that is difficult to comprehend, because nothing should bring no thought, but thought always represent something that does exist, whether it's thought of an objective thing or a thought of a subjective thing.

no-thing. 'no' is the quantity. 'thing' is the general category for things that exist. We only know objective or subjective things. Even things that are imaginary and only exist in the mind, nevertheless do exist. When we put the quantity 'no' on 'thing', we are assuming we are cancelling existence. But we can't speak a zero.

The principle of zero doesn't come from the infinite lack of quantity or infinite lack of existence. It comes from postive displacement. First we must sense something. When that thing is moved, it now leaves what we call space. This space is the nothing. But, what is space? Philosophically, we don't sense space, we only sense the objects that is beyond the space. Try to see the space between you and the computer screen. Good luck.

What is nothing then? It's just an inference that a thing was there and now it's moved.

It may also mean something very small, but not detecable enough to call it a thing. We may not see a field gravity, but we sense the effects of it in terms of displacement of things we do see. If we look across the room, we can say minus the air particle nothing exists, such as a vacuum, but gravity is there, so this nothing is something in a small, but significant sense if that heavy object falls on you.

All thoughts represent something positive. Negative creates confusion, so does zero, nothing, and non-quantities if you don't look for the positive principle that is necessary for us to begin have a thought about 'something' of the so-called 'nothing'.

The term nothing is simply used for convience to represent an inferred displacement or a very, very small quantity. But if you think about it hardly, it's really a positive thing.
 
  • #9
146
2
The problem with this kind of thinking is that, we can reason out to our extremes of what we understand or rather what we can observe.

"Nothing" cannot be observed, because to be blunt there's nothing to observe. So basically, that is why you cannot comprehend the idea of nothing, because you have not been able to understand or observe anything in actuality that have properties resembeling that of "nothing". And also nothing has no properties. So you end up in wondering what it could be because, clear logic and experience tells you that something that you cannot understand does not mean it does not exist. And since you cannot understand "nothing" you are wondering what you have not understood.

You, see, it's simple.
 
  • #10
187
0
The_Thinker said:
So you end up in wondering what it could be because, clear logic and experience tells you that something that you cannot understand does not mean it does not exist. And since you cannot understand "nothing" you are wondering what you have not understood.

You, see, it's simple.
Are you saying that it exists, but you just can't sense it?
 
  • #11
2,225
0
Hey, it's all or nothing man. :wink: And yet, what I would like to know, was nothing absolute before the Big Bang? Did we have absolutely nothing to speak of or, absolutely something to speak of?
 
  • #12
567
3
Are you saying that it exists, but you just can't sense it?
Something that does not exist does not exist. (note: please ignore the error; I refered to that which does not exist...I did it again. It can't be helped.)

Hey, it's all or nothing man. And yet, what I would like to know, was nothing absolute before the Big Bang? Did we have absolutely nothing to speak of or, absolutely something to speak of?
Simple: By saying "before the big bang", you are asserting that there was time before the BB. If time exists, then entropy exists. If entropy exists, there must absolutely be something.
 
  • #13
12
0
If there are no hair on your head then it does not mean that they dont exist any where. Also if hair really does not exist your scalp does. :wink: So there is always an existance of one thing or the other. If there wasn't anything before Big Bang i.e. no matter or mass then obviously energy would have existed. Mass can be regarded as concentrated form of energy.
 
  • #14
PoPpAScience
"Nothing" is a purely descriptive word, and has no actuality. "Nothing" is used to describe the lack of a particular thing in a "something environment". There is always something somewhere, so "Nothing" can only be descriptive in nature. Now, sense everything seems to come from something, then the very first thing had to come from a "Thing" that was nether "Something" nor "Nothing". I know what this thing is, do you?
 
  • #15
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
740
Reference frame arguments. That 'nothing is nothing' is self-evident by observational evidence. You cannot observe 'nothing', therefore it is irrelevant.
 
  • #16
2
0
You can get something for nothing...can't you?
 
  • #17
453
0
we can define a system X as finite because it is limited by NOT-X [all things other than X]- this works for all systems because no system includes everything- but if X is All Existence- if X DOES include everything- then Not-X is NON-Existence which is necessarily self-negating and cannot limit X- thus if X is Existence- then it is infinite QED [a succinct encapsulation of Spinoza’s Ethics]
 
  • #18
What was universe created in? If in nothing, then how can there be nothing if there was something in it?
 
  • #19
PoPpAScience
You can have something from a non-something, if you think of what is nether a something or non-somthing. And there is such a thing and it moves all we know.
 
  • #20
567
3
setAI said:
we can define a system X as finite because it is limited by NOT-X [all things other than X]- this works for all systems because no system includes everything- but if X is All Existence- if X DOES include everything- then Not-X is NON-Existence which is necessarily self-negating and cannot limit X- thus if X is Existence- then it is infinite QED [a succinct encapsulation of Spinoza’s Ethics]

Very nicely put. :smile:
 
  • #21
2
0
::rubs eyes then brain::

I see ...

Existence is a bad idea ... who ever created existence should be fired :D
 
  • #22
1,944
0
That's assuming they haven't already been fired. Personally, if I were as upset as some people seem to be I'd look for a good lawyer and sue the bastard.
 
  • #23
144
0
I love this kind of thread.

I'm one of those people that cottons to the idea that nothing exists.

How else would one get something from nothing?
 
  • #24
1,481
0
We can not say that nothing exists due to semantics and logic. To exist, there must be something to exist and obviously something is not nothing.

There is being and not-being. Being is the state of existing and having properties. Even empty space, a vacuum as empty as it can be made still has properties and energy and is, therefore, something and can be said to exist.

Space-time has properties and energies and therefore can be said be something, to exist.

"Nothing" cannot have any properties or energies, is not something, is a state of non-being rather than being, therefore cannot be said to exist.

Yet "nothing" is. It is real, a part of reality. Whether we call it a void, abstract space, dimentionless space or nul-space, it is.

Before there was anything, there was nothing. If the Big Bang happened then it happened in nothing before there was space, time or space-time.
If the universe is not infinite and is expanding then it is expanding into nothing.

"Nothing" is; "nothing" is real; but, "nothing" does not, can not exist or be said to exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
DM
154
0
Egmont said:
A colleague at work just showed me a book about "time travel". Another meaningless concept. You can't travel through time, you can only travel through space - that's what the word "travel" means.
Interesting point there. But the book does say time travel and not space travel.

Now I'm not entirely sure of what you mean by that because if you're saying that we can only travel through space and yet when you say space you mean time, then I wonder....

But if what I'm thinking is right then how come we can't travel through time and only space?

I wouldn't consider it a meaningless concept, it is by far the most challenging concept that scientists relentlessly attempt to crack or find a solution to it.

In regards to "nothing" I don't also think it's meaningless because it can actually explain the universe. Before anything happened i.e Bing Bang, something else happened before it. This goes on and on until you reach the point of "nothing".
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on The problem of non-existence

  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
91
Views
34K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
186
Views
16K
Top