The problem of non-existence

  • #26
144
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.
I cannot prove that nothing exist by physical means. Mostly because your Existence is not physical either. This can only be done by conceptual means. That is to say that Existence is a conceptual entity.
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.
It is space-time, which is no more than a form of nothing. It is an extension of what we call mass, and that mass is also no more than a form of nothing.
"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.
It is the form of nothing that exist, which gives rise to space-time.
I repeat - This is not a physical entity, but a conceptual ONE - ONE being the tree trunk of logic.
"Nothing" is; "nothing" is real; but, "nothing" does not, can not exist or be said to exist
There is a necessary contradiction here. Suffice to say - I Exist because I don't Exist as the the absolute tool. Existence is no more than a geometric. It's sum total in the infinite sense is a complete definition of nothing. Not to say the definition is complete, but that the process will never be complete. Your Existence is ongoing, which is to be expected in space-time.
 
  • #27
1,481
0
UltraPi1 said:
I cannot prove that nothing exist by physical means. Mostly because your Existence is not physical either. This can only be done by conceptual means. That is to say that Existence is a conceptual entity.
I have just finished reading;"NOTHINGNESS; The science of empty space." by Henning Genz. He points out, rightfully so IMO, that space-time has properties that can be measured and the effects seen or detected. Even empty space has these properties; and, therefore, is something, is being; and, can, therefore, be said to exist.

It is space-time, which is no more than a form of nothing. It is an extension of what we call mass, and that mass is also no more than a form of nothing.
It is the form of nothing that exist, which gives rise to space-time.
I repeat - This is not a physical entity, but a conceptual ONE - ONE being the tree trunk of logic.
Again, there is a difference between space time and nothing. they are completely different orders of realty. Space-time has physical properties that can be measured and their effects measured and is therfore a physical reality that does exist. It is or is a property or characteristic of the Higgs field.

Nothing on the other hand has no properties or characteristics and is independant and not effected or influenced by the Higgs field or anything else. Yet nothing is real; nothing is. "Nothing is real." is the title of the last chapter in the book that I mentioned above. I reccomend it to anyone interested.

While nothing is real it does not have any properties; does not have any effect on anything else and can not be effected by anything else. Nothing is not space or time and space/time can not and does not exist within nothing or visa versa without the presence of energy and a higgs field.

It is the Higgs field that make space, time, mass and matter possible. Without the presence of a Higgs field and energy there can be no space, no time, no mass, no matter. Nor can there be any dimention or direction.

There is a necessary contradiction here. Suffice to say - I Exist because I don't Exist as the the absolute tool. Existence is no more than a geometric. It's sum total in the infinite sense is a complete definition of nothing. Not to say the definition is complete, but that the process will never be complete. Your Existence is ongoing, which is to be expected in space-time.
There is no contradiction so long as we realize that nothing is not the same as empty space and both are possible and both are real in reality. They are different orders of reality and can not be compared. Empty space has a physical energenic reality and is within the state of being. Nothing has no state or properties other than non-being yet it is and it is real.
 
  • #28
453
0
DM said:
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".
nequaquam vacuum

the multiverse azal and abad
 
  • #29
292
0
Hi all,

Nothingness can be looked at as a total and complete lack of differentiating properties. If there is no difference, then a somethingness can not be perceived or defined. The perceiver and definer are themselves undifferentiated with respect to anything else.

The empty set, as a subset of all other sets, then represents the non-differentiated whole outside the definition of the original set.

In this way non-existence can be defined as undifferentiate existence.

juju
 
  • #30
144
0
Even empty space has these properties; and, therefore, is something, is being; and, can, therefore, be said to exist.
Never said that empty space didn't have properties. I said that it's constituents were composed of nothing - As in the kind of nothing that has no properties. It is the form of a component that has the properties, and those properties are not physical. Same could be said for what we term mass. It is the form of mass that has properties, because mass also is composed of nothing at all. Empty space is no more than the extension of mass. For the most part .... You are talking about the same thing when discussing mass and empty space, and that thing is form (conceptual entities).

If there is one point that needs to be understood here - It is that your reality is not physical. Please toss it in the nearest receptacle (thank you). Besides - It can cause concussions that cloud your thinking. :-) To derive a universe from nothing - One must accept this implicitly. (Nothing) cannot willnot go to your trashcan for physics class.
 
  • #31
113
0
The definition of nothingness is what it is, nothing... Now you can say, that if there was nothing it would still be something, and would have properties etc, but even if impossible to reach, nothingness means for nothing to exist, so wether it is achievable or not, nothingness is still nothing.
 
  • #32
16
0
48 hours is too long. Don't take logic too seriously, all this search for "non contradiction" is probably simply an "aesthetical (aka artistic)" preference. Any concept or problem or theory that is thought upon too precisely will end uo creating contradictions! That is because contradictions are the universe and we try to force it into a scheme of non contradictions.

I accept contradictions, because I think that it is a higher form of reasonining. Also you can claim anything and everything and get away with it and it is fun.

THE TOBOR APE
 
  • #33
9
0
To say that "nothing" can not exist would be audacious because you would be refer refering "nothing" as to something that is more that a concept. To be concise, "nothing" is neither existent nor non-existent.
 
  • #34
113
0
Yes but the idea of nothingness does exist, it is just unacheivable
 
  • #35
16
0
Remember to accept contradictions! Nothing exists and doesn't exist at the same time and in the same place. Everything is both true and false simultaneously! Every conceivable concept exists and doesn't exist simultaneously.

Really I can't understand why it is so hard to accept reasoning through contradiction! There is absolutely no reason not to use this wonderful logical mechanism that solves all philosophical problems. After all we are not calculating the structure of a bridge so contradictions in this realm is acceptable.


TOBOR APE MAN
 
Last edited:
  • #36
292
0
Hi all,

The way to deal with contradictions is to find something from which all sides of the contriction can be derived.

Sometimes this something is just nothingness. That's the way it is.

If you extend Godels theorems on completeness and inconsistancy you will eventually arrive at a penultimate set of concepts the are all mutually exclusive, with no synthesis to derive them from.

This leaves the ultimate concept in the realm of nothingness.

juju
 
Last edited:
  • #37
598
0
eighth man said:
Remember to accept contradictions! Nothing exists and doesn't exist at the same time and in the same place. Everything is both true and false simultaneously! Every conceivable concept exists and doesn't exist simultaneously.

Really I can't understand why it is so hard to accept reasoning through contradiction! There is absolutely no reason not to use this wonderful logical mechanism that solves all philosophical problems. After all we are not calculating the structure of a bridge so contradictions in this realm is acceptable.


TOBOR APE MAN
To say that something is the case and not the case at the same time logically implies:

Something is partly the case and partly not the case.

The Law of Contradiction naturally clarifies the Law of Excluded Middle paradigmatically. It is a paradigmatic shift from Circularism!
 
  • #38
16
0
Well I meant that my personal vision of "accepting contradictions" means I don't accept any "law of contradiction", aka "I decide whatever I want" aka "I could care less how incoherent my reasoning goes" aka "it is all true and it is all false" aka /(&&&&"=8//xU) this is a formula I invented that could mean anything ....

8 TOBORS
 
  • #39
189
0
In this sense nothing is what you're left with if you take everything away

so in universal speak

by rewinding time and compressing space you encounter the singular nothing that is only relative to itself as there is a lack of something to compare it too.

so where is this nothing now ???...depends who you ask.

a loop gravitist, a string theorist, a relativist will tell you different things but they don't really know and they don't really want to acknowledge that they don't know until they do.

They will probably telll you it is irrelevent

Which is why I am holding tight for the theory of nothing which will be much more compelling than a theory of everthing for with a theory of nothing someone is gonna have to account for consciousness.

And really what do physicists know about consciousness ???

can somebody now tell me what this infinity thing is all about as well ???
 
  • #40
16
0
OK. Let's not get too mysterious now. I can be somewhat scientific too...
Consciousness is probably nothing special in the end. It may be just a complex neural network in our brains that have multiple "reflections" loops (like in software) and other structures all probably very physical (like PC chips). Real problem is that to discover what and how consciousness works and is we will have to modify our neural networks directly and "experience" the effect. Now not too many scientists (or volenteers) will be willing too have their brain physically manipulated.

8
 
  • #41
whole nothingness

infinity accounts for nothing as 'nothing' is a concept developed by humans, and we seem to exist. infinity just means that novelty should not come as any great surprise, as anything/nothing is possible. and anything/nothing is predictable.

i agree/disagree with eighth man. contradictions are everywhere and they prove that we are constructing our realities.

to imagine nothing one could try thinking of everything at once (meaning as instantly as possible) and not dwell upon any one thing for long. but this is an intellegent way of acting. a more sensory action may be easier (ie. by laying down and sensing with all senses ones external surroundings/internal feelings). again, one can only do the best one can. of course, it is nearly impossible to achieve, but worth trying, as there are many people who claim it is extremely good for you!
 
  • #42
567
3
i agree/disagree with eighth man. contradictions are everywhere and they prove that we are constructing our realities.
Contradictions prove that there is chaos. (i'm not sure....)

to imagine nothing one could try thinking of everything at once (meaning as instantly as possible) and not dwell upon any one thing for long. but this is an intellegent way of acting. a more sensory action may be easier (ie. by laying down and sensing with all senses ones external surroundings/internal feelings). again, one can only do the best one can. of course, it is nearly impossible to achieve, but worth trying, as there are many people who claim it is extremely good for you!
Wouldn't it make more sense to think of everything and its inverse at once? Just as +1+(-1)=0, couldn't +everything+-everything=nothing?

I couldn't help saying that, even though I disagree with myself on the above statement and with you. Anyway, it is futile to imagine something when that something doesn't exist.
 
  • #43
sounds good, a sort of balancing out of chaos! :wink:
yes my description (as with all descriptions) cannot be meaningful for everyone. i look back at it and it's pretty confusing.

but who says nothing does not exist? some things may not be physical as such, and could be termed 'nothing' as aside from the physical 'something'........? actually i am coming closer to the conclusion that 'nothing' is a fallicy.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
22
0
Yes nothing does exist. Even though nothing is an impossibility that impossibility exists. I know it sounds like a contradiction but the universe is paradoxical like that.
Without nothing everything could not exist.
 

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