Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why Nothingness Is Not a Word

  1. May 10, 2003 #1
    Why "Nothingness" Is Not a Word

    As I've pointed out in my thread, "An Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics", the word "nothing" doesn't denote anything (because, if it denoted something, it wouldn't be "nothing", but "something") - and can be replaced by a variation of "not anything", in any sentence.

    However, many people still make use of the word "Nothingness". According to the previously defined understanding of the word "nothing", "nothingness" cannot mean anything. Allow me to explain:

    The suffix, "-ness", is used (along with a word that it is connected to) to denote a state of something. e.g., if I say "fatness", I'm denoting the state of being fat.

    However, only "things" (entities), can have a state. Even if the "something" is merely conceptual, it can still have a state. The word "nothing", since it doesn't denote anything, cannot be denoting the state of anything.

    Does this make sense?

    Any comments/corrections/arguments/etc are appreciated.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 10, 2003 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Hmm... I find it halfminusungood. The trouble is that nothingness has an additional emotional connotation to "not anything". Say it in your head, and you get a feeling of emptiness that overwhelms, that is eternal. Rather like a hole, instead of a dip which you can fill it with something. Or maybe you just get a headache....
     
  4. May 10, 2003 #3
    Actually, you are refering to gradually removing every "something" that I know about. This is a good exercise (as heusdens has pointed out in the past), but it will never lead you to "nothing". The reason I say this is that you cannot conceive of something without 1) existing; and 2) conceiving of something. Both of these points are in the realm of "something", and cannot extend to the realm of that which is described by "nothing".
     
  5. May 10, 2003 #4

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Then my point is that the "nothing" can exist as a concept in our mind that while being related, is distinct from the abscence of the concept. Kinda like our use of the number Zero... The nothing of nothingness means... well... nothing, but it is treated in our mind as something which has as an essence an essential nothingness. Consider it as a sort of potential well...
     
  6. May 10, 2003 #5
    Observer tools ...?

    Nothingness refers to a quantitative aspect in a certain framework.
    The problem is however that the observer is limited by his tools of observation.
    What today is nothing ... can be discovered or measured tomorrow
     
  7. May 10, 2003 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe you are all relying on definitions of which I am ignorant, but I will still try throwing in a couple of thoughts which may constitute nothingness : What about the comparison to zero. If I remember correctly, zero is consider something which has no value. It holds a place but represents nothing. So, nothing is the value, but zero is the thing. Isn't nothingness like the concept of a place without substance? Perhaps the logical equivalent to a pure vacuum shielded from all sources of energy - no EM, no gravity, no neutrinos, absolutely nothing. Even though no thing is there, there is still a there…the point being that a defined “location” or “volume” does exist conceptually.
     
  8. May 10, 2003 #7

    Eh

    User Avatar

    See http://www.objectivethought.com/articles/dichotomy.html for reification of the zero.

    But honestly, there is no problem with the word because the ambiguity of the english language allows for it to avoid being a contradiction. For example, many people would classify "things" as matter and energy, but not necessarly existence. So a vacuum which is absent of such things, could be called nothingness. Likewise, some folks would consider being dead (unconscious) to be state of nothingness. The problem is semantics instead of ontological.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2003
  9. May 10, 2003 #8
    The word "nothing" does denote something: it denotes the absence of some thing. Thusly, the word "nothingness" denotes the state of the complete absence of things, the absence of everything.
     
  10. May 10, 2003 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I may object to my own premise here since my example implies a place which by definition cannot exist and still be a place, I think. If space is something, which it seems to be by virtue of stress tensors and such, then my example seems to go completely imaginary. Then I start to agree with the premise of the thread. But at least I think we can still escape the point by arguing semantics.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2003
  11. May 10, 2003 #10
    Nonsense. There is no 'quantity' within philosophical-nothing.
    The problem is that your eyes are bigger than your mind.
    If I was philosophy mentor, I'd delete this nonsense straight-away. Do you understand what reason is?? A "quantitative nothing" is not a rational possibility.
     
  12. May 10, 2003 #11
    I have no 'reason' to doubt about your statements because they come from the GREAT and ONLY MIND HIMSELF! [zz)]
     
  13. May 10, 2003 #12
    Nothing is a word, in that it's related to something. You can't have absolute nothing ... but, if "nothing" else .... but, if "nothing" else ... but, if "nothing" else ... it sets the criteria by which you establish "something."
     
  14. May 11, 2003 #13

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    "Corrupt" philosophy at work?
     
  15. May 11, 2003 #14
    I'd probably have him flogged too. LOL
     
  16. May 11, 2003 #15

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Heh. The point is that nothingness can exist as a philosophical concept separate from that of "not anything", and this concept can be useful in discussion of certain things (eg. philosophical mathematics?)... even if this is not represented in reality. Ie. the use of the word nothingness is justified, to represent perhaps the idea of a negative potential to be filled.
    Sort of.
     
  17. May 11, 2003 #16
    Flogged me?
    It seems you assume that I give 'value' to your words and ideas.
    I just observe them.
     
  18. May 11, 2003 #17
    Mentat, I'd suggest you to dive deeper into 'human communication' issues. Verbal language is meant to exchange associations, not formal understanding. 'nothing' creates a kind of association.
     
  19. May 11, 2003 #18
    The state itself is something, thus it wouldn't be the absence of everything, just most things.
     
  20. May 11, 2003 #19
    This is kind of like what Eh was saying, and I pretty much agree: this is just a semantic problem. "Nothing" will continue to be misused as long as it's a word. There's nothing I can do about that. However, I would like it if people would stop misusing it in a discussion that really relies on what the word means (such as discussions about "outside of the universe" and the like).
     
  21. May 11, 2003 #20
    No, a vacuum isn't "nothing", it's a vacuum (that's something in itself).

    "Zero" doesn't equal "nothing". Zero is a number, that's something.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why Nothingness Is Not a Word
  1. What is nothingness? (Replies: 20)

Loading...