Is nothing actually something?

[Korpsy Knievel]

So yesterday I was reading "If the blah blah blah blah blah blah then the question arises, 'Why is there something, rather than nothing?'" And I thought to myself, isn't the perfect void, a total absence of everything and anything, a sort of thing in itself? Now of course my thoughts on non-being are prejudiced by a personal experience of being, but as to whether there is a quality of "thing-ness" to absolute and infinite nothing, I say yes, yes there is. Opinions?

[fen]

Nothing is a thing. Sort of ironic, but yeah.

[Galen]

As a concept, 'nothing' can probably count as a thing in and of itself. But in the realm of so-called reality, outside of idle human brain musings, I don't recall there ever having been a documented case of 'nothing.' Maybe I'm missing the point though?

[717495]

to refer to nothing it has to exist.

Which is exactly why we cannot refer to nothing. We can always refer to its absence (which is quite easy and is exactly what all of us are doing.)

As a concept, 'nothing' can probably count as a thing in and of itself.

A concept can be called nothing, pass off as nothing, and no one would even notice because nothing's missing.

[Raver]

I've thought about this before and in my opinion I think nothing is actually something. So if one assumes that there was nothing at all before the big bang and something came after the explosion of nothing then it could possibly mean that nothing is actually something.

[Gilly]

It is a thing itself, yes, but only because we conceptualize it as a thing, because there is no other way for us to comprehend it. In reality, without something to comprehend it, it is nothing.

[Gilly]

Its like the tree falling in the woods question. Does it make a sound? Well, it makes sound waves, so technically yes, but "sound" is a subjective thing, and it needs someone to hear it before there is any point in calling it sound, so no.

[Galen]

Its like the tree falling in the woods question. Does it make a sound? Well, it makes sound waves, so technically yes, but "sound" is a subjective thing, and it needs someone to hear it before there is any point in calling it sound, so no.

Right, and thus we come to the point of how human experience plays a part in this question. Is what qualifies as "something" solely dependent on the human's ability to perceive it? If you look at it from the perspective being a human with an ultimate flawed means of perceiving things, then the answer would have to be yes because there would be no other way of understanding anything. But removed from the basic human condition I would have to say no: the universe is going to be what it's going to be regardless of what the tiny Earthlings will want to make of it.

This topic makes me really tired. Fuck you korp.

[Korpsy Knievel]

My dad's math teacher hung upside down from steam-pipes in the classroom ceiling to relieve pain from injuries sustained in WWII. This fellow also professed a firm belief that anything he was actively perceiving ceased to exist the moment his attention was removed elsewhere. Perhaps my dad learned algebra from Berkeley's God.

It is a thing itself, yes, but only because we conceptualize it as a thing, because there is no other way for us to comprehend it. In reality, without something to comprehend it, it is nothing.

I don't think a reality of nothingness requires an observer qualifying its non-being for it to independently posses that nature. Whether someone has conceptualized it or not, in such a universal condition of non-being the fact that "nothing is" just Is.

Its like the tree falling in the woods question. Does it make a sound? Well, it makes sound waves, so technically yes, but "sound" is a subjective thing, and it needs someone to hear it before there is any point in calling it sound, so no.

Be careful not to conflate the objectivity of atmospheric pressure fluctuations with the subjectivity of their psychoacoustic apperception. If a tree has fallen on this planet it's also vibrated the earth and the air in its vicinity, and so those events have transpired regardless of a witness' availability to notice, interpret, and categorize them or their consequences.

semantic soup.

Would you care for a bit of grated cheese or freshly milled pepper with that?

[silke]

It must be something since it spawned an entire universe. Technically nothing doesn't exist, there is always something there, at least within the bounds of our universe.

[Galen]

I've thought about this before and in my opinion I think nothing is actually something. So if one assumes that there was nothing at all before the big bang and something came after the explosion of nothing then it could possibly mean that nothing is actually something.

This doesn't implicate that existence and non-existence are the same thing, nor does it mean that there was once a time where something never existed at all. We could probably go into quantum physics and string theory energy bullshit that nobody on here actually understands to pose the argument that something was never nothing in the first place, and that its presence was/is simply transmuted into another form which we are unable to personally comprehend.

[krieger]

semantic soup.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I've thought about this before and in my opinion I think nothing is actually something. So if one assumes that there was nothing at all before the big bang and something came after the explosion of nothing then it could possibly mean that nothing is actually something.

I cannot deny that there might be more to existence than the material, and so I cannot definitively equate Being with the supposed resultant appearance of the Big Bang's space-time, energy, and matter. Nor, I think, must being possess extension and duration to exist (though it's kind of brain-bender to imagine how, because even if those are illusionary byproducts created by the nature of our limited understanding of the world, they're still how we understand the world). Still, if we assume the truth of what you're saying then can't the nothingness prior to the appearance of physical reality be said to contain the possibility of eventual somethingness? If yes, as your answer suggests, then that inherent quality of latent somethingness enhances the thingness of nothing, at least in this case. We can go a step further and say that being can exist in the absence of its manifestations.

Right, and thus we come to the point of how human experience plays a part in this question. Is what qualifies as "something" solely dependent on the human's ability to perceive it? If you look at it from the perspective being a human with an ultimate flawed means of perceiving things, then the answer would have to be yes because there would be no other way of understanding anything. But removed from the basic human condition I would have to say no: the universe is going to be what it's going to be regardless of what the tiny Earthlings will want to make of it.

This topic makes me really tired. Fuck you korp.

I like your distinction between "what is" and "what seems". So fuck you too.

It must be something since it spawned an entire universe. Technically nothing doesn't exist, there is always something there, at least within the bounds of our universe.

Sure, but I'm thinking of a universe where there is no universe because nothing exists, not even the possibility of anything other than nothing.

[Raver]

This doesn't implicate that existence and non-existence are the same thing, nor does it mean that there was once a time where something never existed at all. We could probably go into quantum physics and string theory energy bullshit that nobody on here actually understands to pose the argument that something was never nothing in the first place, and that its presence was/is simply transmuted into another form which we are unable to personally comprehend.

Yeah, I just prefer to look at it as existence and non-existence being a team that together make the other possible. So basically my point is that nothing and something are just two different kinds of something.

I cannot deny that there might be more to existence than the material, and so I cannot definitively equate Being with the supposed resultant appearance of the Big Bang's space-time, energy, and matter. Nor, I think, must being possess extension and duration to exist (though it's kind of brain-bender to imagine how, because even if those are illusionary byproducts created by the nature of our limited understanding of the world, they're still how we understand the world). Still, if we assume the truth of what you're saying then can't the nothingness prior to the appearance of physical reality be said to contain the possibility of eventual somethingness? If yes, as your answer suggests, then that inherent quality of latent somethingness enhances the thingness of nothing, at least in this case. We can go a step further and say that being can exist in the absence of its manifestations.

I agree, it is possible that there was something before the big bang and not just nothing. If that's the case then all the big bang did was mix something and nothing into the big chaotic mess that is known as the universe or multiverse if there are a substantial amount of universes. So prior to the big bang, nothing and something were probably more distinct and divided. Also, nothing is something like that Alan Watts video posted by leckysupport suggests because the two need eachother to exist.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Nothing is Everything.

A single person wishes and has the *desire* that they can acquire every perspective, but the best they can do is strengthen their own. Nothing is narcisissm - but everything is narcissistic.

We want everything (especially women - sorry couldn't resist the jibe there) but then when we do that we ironically end up with NOTHING.

"People who want the whole world end up being their own worst enemies" - Xena, Warrior Princess.

So brave, so wise.

[Azure Flame]

If you're an Ne user, the answer to this question is yes.

<dog barking in the distance>

[Saberstorm]

Mozart is dead.

Mozart never knew this moment in time would come.

Mozart never knew that you were playing his music.

Every single person who ever played his music will die.

Every single copy of his music will be destroyed by time.

Mozart is dead.

Mozart is dead.

Mozart is dead.

[Park]

Before the big bang there was nothing.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Blah blah monist idealism blah blah blah Indian philosophy blah blah nirguṇa Brahman or "the impersonal Absolute Truth without any material qualities".

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

[krieger]

being and non-being are united in becoming. - W.F. Hegel

in as far as the void possess some latent potential for turning into "something" it can be said to have a rudimentary form of something-ness to it.

[InvisibleJim]

Nothing is the absence of something.

[SyrupDeGem]

No thing, is still a thing

[Creepy-]

I already made a post in here, but having read it again, it is quite vague and doesn't really answer the issue at hand.So here's attempt number two:

Existence is everything, and need not be explained or understood (and as far as I'm concerned, it may well be unable to be understood by beings such as man). That is all. The absence of something (which might be one definition of nothing) is nothing more than a human abstraction. Absence doesn't exist in reality, for reality is existence, and existence is everything.

In other words, the very reason this query exists is still because of the limitations of language. And the query itself is clearly nothing more than a semantics game. Look around at the responses in this thread.

[Korpsy Knievel]

In other words, the very reason this query exists is still because of the limitations of language. And the query itself is clearly nothing more than a semantics game. Look around at the responses in this thread.

That's because and that's why I put this question to the public.

He does have some good things to say, was good for me to hear in a hard time in life. He's a bit new-agey for my taste now, but he has some fresh voicing of Buddhist-derived concepts if you are into that stuff.

I'm guessing he'd fit among those exploring "the perennial philosophy" so whatever hoodoo he's laying down is likely to share common currents with a great deal of my recent reading in Eastern philosophy and esoterica, which sometimes enjoin the reader to intuitively jump out his or her own asshole to address problems that are too internally condtradictory to be solved through logic without reinventing the whole world around them.

[Gilly]

That's because and that's why I put this question to the public.



I'm guessing he'd fit among those exploring "the perennial philosophy" so whatever hoodoo he's laying down is likely to share common currents with a great deal of my recent reading in Eastern philosophy and esoterica, which sometimes enjoin the reader to intuitively jump out his or her own asshole to address problems that are too internally condtradictory to be solved through logic without reinventing the whole world around them.

<3 Huxley and yes, although he is a bit cheesier/less artful about it.

[InvisibleJim]

No thing, is still a thing

It's the absence of a thing, hence: no thing, surely?

[Oaky]

Let's pretend to go beyond the absence of space which would be beyond existence. If we imagine an expanding universe we imagine an expanding space. If we imagine an expanding space we imagine the existence of time and since we cannot go beyond the speed of light we cannot go beyond existence. All we'd manage is distorting time and space. So is absolute nothing a thing? Well... that depends. Space is not within the confines of space. So the universe is not expanding into space. It is expanding on itself beneath nothingness or nonexistence. It can't be imagined because it's unfathomable to thought or experience. It is not a vacuum. It cannot go by any scientific laws. It cannot be experimented upon... but regarding it as an 'it' kind of makes it a hypothetical something so... existentially it is not a thing, but hypothetically we are defining it as something with the absence of all things.

[Absurd]

It is not a vacuum. It cannot go by any scientific laws. It cannot be experimented upon... but regarding it as an 'it' kind of makes it a hypothetical something so... existentially it is not a thing, but hypothetically we are defining it as something with the absence of all things.

Bingo, it's not a thing at all and it can't be derived from laws of physics as well. It has been done and ended in a fail. For fucks sake, it's entropy.

[Gilly]

Ontological conditions are directly responsible for framing the nature of the experiential and speculative, so it is useful to understand them in both the personal and the cosmic sense.

Agreed and I love the way you put this. Our personal ontology basically colors everything we experience.

And if the means can be found to achieve both at once then all the better. I am not familiar with Tolle but from reading his wiki-p list of influences it sounds like he speaks my language.

He does have some good things to say, was good for me to hear in a hard time in life. He's a bit new-agey for my taste now, but he has some fresh voicing of Buddhist-derived concepts if you are into that stuff.

[Gilly]

No thing, is still a thing

Only linguistically. When you think about the concrete implications, it becomes inherently self-contradicting.

[SyrupDeGem]

It's the absence of a thing, hence: no thing, surely?

Disagree

Only linguistically. When you think about the concrete implications, it becomes inherently self-contradicting.

Also conceptually and theoretically. To refer to something it has to exist, to refer to nothing it has to exist. Even to infer the non-existence automatically gives life to the idea of existence. But yes agreed, it is incredibly contradictory.

[Gilly]

Also conceptually and theoretically.

That's what I meant by linguistically: it only exists insofar as we refer to it or talk about, rather than having physical existence that truly embodies the term in its complete definition. There is not a "nothing" sitting out there somewhere; if it was, it would be nowhere, by definition, which means it wouldn't exist.

To refer to something it has to exist, to refer to nothing it has to exist.

Are you a Christian? Because this statement smacks of Anselm and Descartes and their logically futile attempts at ontological rationale for the existence of God.

Even to infer the non-existence automatically gives life to the idea of existence. But yes agreed, it is incredibly contradictory.

Yes, it gives it an existence as an idea; this is what I meant by "linguistically:" it only exists insofar as we attempt to communicate it conceptually. That does not mean that "a nothing" exists somewhere out there, because if it did, then it would be a thing, and, by definition, not a "nothing."

[SyrupDeGem]

Are you a Christian? Because this statement smacks of Anselm and Descartes and their logically futile attempts at ontological rationale for the existence of God.

Aha, no. Though I see what you are doing there. Intuitively you may have walked into something else though, i suppose i am agnostic.. so i believe in a 'something' and not a 'nothing' there too. Hmm... I'm mulling this over now... may come back to this.

[InvisibleJim]

Null.



In some good news it is not possible to find nothing unless you go non-corporeal.

[SyrupDeGem]

Null.



In some good news it is not possible to find nothing unless you go non-corporeal.

And how exactly do you suppose you find nothing?

[InvisibleJim]

And how exactly do you suppose you find nothing?

Limbo - the non corpreal! I guess you could also take a vacuum and subject it to the inverse of all background radiation waveforms to find a corporeal true 'nothing' space.

[SyrupDeGem]

Limbo - the non corpreal! I guess you could also take a vacuum and subject it to the inverse of all background radiation waveforms to find a corporeal true 'nothing' space.

I always thought of limbo as a transitory state... a time between but nevertheless still existing. If you created a vacuous state or place would it not still be surrounded by other things, giving it definition if by only that alone. If 'it' can be defined does it not auto receive 'something' status?

[Pookie]

No thing is nothing. Nothing doesnt exist. Therefore, nothing is Nothing.

A horse is a horse is a horse.

[rat1]

The conception of nothing is different than pure nothingness. Pure nothingness does not exist by definition, but probably does exist in an undefined realm beyond any conscious awareness. The conscious awareness of nothing does exist as not being able to see yourself / be aware of yourself..

[Gilly]

Read Eckhart Tolle's books The Power Of Now, and A New Earth. His books are pretty much about this concept.

Yeah but he refers to it in a more...internal and self-relating spiritual context, whereas I think k0rpsy is speaking in a more ontological sense. There's no denying the two are linked but in this case there is an obvious distinction.