On the nonexistence of nothingness

Yeah, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. If I speak of 'Aristotle', I'm referring to a Greek philosopher who really lived in the mid to late 300s BCE. But the name no longer has an existing reference today in 2013 CE. (Ignoring other people with the same name of course.)

So Aristotle was an existing object in 320 BCE, but isn't an existing object in 2013 CE. What I'm arguing against is the idea that Aristotle still exists in some dark and mysterious kind of existence called 'non-existence'. I guess that I prefer to say that the name no longer has an existing referrant, even though at one time it did.

I'd say that we have an idea of 'the apple', but that the word/idea doesn't refer to anything beyond itself.

But yeah, Parmenides wouldn't agree. Or maybe he would.

I'm inclined to think that Parmenides was trying to promote an Indian Upanishad-style idea in ancient Italy, in which true reality is an unchanging One analogous to the Vedantic Brahman. That's ultimate reality for Parmenides. Which still leaves this world of illusion to explain, the world of flux in which things (falsely) seem to come into and go out of existence. Parmenides might have been more willing to adopt my kind of analysis to the illusory phenomenal world.

(I don't know very much about Parmenides, but my understanding is that we only have part of his writings, only the part about ultimate reality, and we don't have his explanation of how the world of appearance flows out of that. In particular, I still don't understand where even illusory change could come from in Parmenides' scheme.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God/"U"niverse > 3 Subcatagories

God/"U"niverse/The

1) metaphysical-1 cosmic laws/principles aka absolute truths,
...{ nothingness-1 }.....

2) metaphyiscal-2 is the macro-micro- infinite non-occupied space that embraces our finite,
..{ nothingness-2 }

3) occupied space( Universe/The Whole Sha-Bang ) as fermions( matter ) bosons( forces between fermionic particles ).
..{ quasi-physical gravitational spacetime is metaphysical-3 }...


A simple, not complex, cosmic heirarchy to grasp. imho

r6

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could you translate this into something comprehensible please?

This too.

And finally, this.

I'm sure it's very easy to grasp. The problem is that you haven't made it clear what it is that we are supposed to be grasping.

(I predict that rr6 will now launch into a tirade about how much of a troll I am)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A single pebble is only substance.
To be living has both substance and quality,
otherwise a living thing would be no different from the pile of elements that compose it.

A living thing adapts and adapts to its environment
so as to maintain itself.
It has the quality of self preservation.

That is the widest definition of a living thing.
If you accepted it, you would have to say that a pebble beach was a simple form of life.

 

rav, I don't recall if we have had any past conversation. Based on your comments below, my guess is that you do not play fair and do not have a sincere heart to understand anything I've stated. You might as well keep your comments to yourself in my regards.

Start with the first word metaphysical i.e. "meta" is greek for 'beyond. ergo beyond the physical is the meaning of the first word and that word has existed in dictionary for many years is my best guess and that is where you need to start, with a dictionary since you do not understand even the first word.

The #1 associated with first word is used as identifier to distingush any others uses of the word metaphysical in my posts that are definitive and clear to those who have sincere heart to understand anything.

If you can not comprehend English or cannot choose to be indifferrent to English and my use of it, then there is nothing I can say to help you because I use mostly English words with occassional latin-- ex 'ergo' ----thrown in along with some greek here and there. Simple not complex.

Most of the trolls I've met here start with the same approach you have taken, ergo, my reluctance to believe you play fair or have any moral integrity in my regards. When you feel you have understood the first word then perhaps we can move on the 2nd or third word. My guess, like most of the trolls I've met here, you will never get beyond the first word, as that is mind game trolls like to play.

Your use of word "tirade"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

is just further evidence of your unfair play, as is typical of most trolls around here.

r6

 

I understand English quite well. What's at issue here is your communication skills. I've tried to tell you before that putting an idea into words so that it makes sense to other people requires more effort than putting an idea into words so that it makes sense to you. That's because when you read it back to yourself you're filling in all the gaps by drawing upon additional information and context that isn't accessible to anyone else.

What you need to do, obviously, is flesh out your comments more so everyone else can see that additional information and context too.

You can either stop being stubborn about this, or end up on half the forum memberships ignore list because they've become tired of trying to comprehend your gibberish.

 

Excellent observation. Speaking clearly almost assumes an ability to identify with the uninformed audience pov. Something perhaps developed only with practice.

 

Some people are naturally gifted in that regard.

 

Trolls Stuck on First Word

Your a troll Rav, when you can grasp even the first word of anything I've stated, then perhaps we can begin to put 2nd and third words into context. You have given no evidence of such.

You lack the sincerity of heart to understand anything I've stated. Trolls throw road blocks-- mental or otherwise ---onto the roadway of the bridge the live under, to create uneccessary obfustications and disturances.

Trolls rarely offer anything to those using the bridge of communication, idea and concepts of mind/intellect.

Your a troll and have nothing valid to offer in regards to to anything I've stated. Trolls are mental( mind/intellect ) road blocks...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Come back and talk to me when you have found the sincerity in your heart to understand even one word-- metaphysical-1 for starters or GOD/"U"niverse etc --- otherwise keep your drooling attention gazing at your troling reflection under the bridge.

You have nothing valid to say in my regards ergo you offer nothing of relevant significance, as is the case with most trolls.

r6

 

:yawn:

 

"Existence of Nothing" Is Corrected Title

I've corrected the title to better represent truth of "U"niverse/God concept which specifically includes;

1) metaphysical-1 as abstract cosmically absoulte laws/principles as accessed via mind/intellect, plus the abstract relative truths or lies that are not of a cosmic/generalized nature.

2) metaphysical-2 as macro-micro infinite non-occupied space that, embraces but in no way contains or restrains,

3) the finite Universe of occupied space aka fermions( matter ) and bosons( forces ) or any aggregate collection thereof.

True nothing does exist as metaphysical-2 non-occupied space and metaphysical-1 above.

Reality = real estate = land/ocean/air etc.....

Our reality( energy/physical ) is eternally existent because energy/physical cannot be created nor destroyed and as such, physical/energy is in eternal complementation to absolutes of metaphysical-1 above.

No one to date has ever offerred any rationally logical counter-argument to my given cosmic heirarchy above, and that is because none exist.

The truth is out there, for those with sincere heart and some effort to find it.

r6

 

Can you prove nothing exists?

 

How would you go about doing that?

 

Proofs of Non-occupied Space and Occupied Space

If your talking to me MR, the answer is no I cannot prove the existence of true nothingness aka non-occupied space.

I state what makes a rationally logical assessment based on observations of others, as do so many humans.

Start with a dictionary definition of 'vacum' ex
.."vac·u·um (vky-m, -ym, -ym)
1.a. Absence of matter.
b. A space empty of matter.
c. A space relatively empty of matter.
d. A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure."...

If we take definition "1.a. and b." above, then we may then relate that to some allegations that our observed Universe. had a beginning that stemmed from a 'fluctuation in the vacum'.

I.e. something( Universe ) from nothing( vacum ).

So MR, just based on that information and resultant scenario, we are then left with only three possible concepts;

1) that this newly formed Universe of occupied space is finite--- and that appears to me, to be the specific set of circumstance of all we have observed so far ---,
...in this scenario the true nothingness( non-occupied space ) exists beyond our finite Universe of occupied space and this a simple concept....

2) that this newly formed Universe of occupied space is macro-micro infinite,
... not likely conclusion of those who have a comprehensive understanding of structural and systemic integrity.....

3) that this newly formed Universe of occupied space is micro-infinite only ergo not macro-infinite.
..Fuller is a proponet of this latter idea and takes his multiplciation-by-division inward on and micro infinite extremme ergo an eternal scenario, because we cannot have infinite spatial somethingness without an associated eternal spatial( occupied ) existence....

My given cosmic hierarchy is simple, clearly defined, and includes descriptive associated terms for better clarification ex God/Universe is sort of like two words that are synonyms or used in differrent to mean similar things but in differrent sciences, religons schools of thought etc.

r6

 

The quantum vacuum which cosmologists posit to be the origin of the Big Bang is NOT nothing. Here's what Wikipedia says about it:

"In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

 

I Saind 'If"

I said "if". I told you I had no proof a true nothingness and I gave you dictionary terms for vacum as lead ins to my "if" and those scenarios that followed.

I gave you scenarios, not what I believed to be the case of our reality.

The beginning scenario for reality case, is laid out clearly in my cosmic heirarchy which begins with the most inclusive whole and is subcatogorized from there.

If you see an error in my stated heirarchy or have a differrent viewpoint, then by all means please share. Better yet give us your cosmic heirarchy and let us clearly compare your vs mine vs whomevers.

To date, no one have has ever offered any valid statements rationally and logically invalidate my given heirarchy as stated, nor has anyone offerred their own or anyones else's cosmic heirarchy to compare and consider/ponder/evaluate.

My guess is that you do not have cosmic heirachy and certainly one that is more rational or logical than mine as stated.


So again, for those who believe in a finite, physical/energy Universe of occupied space, then there is only one option, that there exists only non-occupied space beyond the finite Universe. This is simple, logical common sense rationality.

Please share with us you have something the logically invalidates my cosmic heirachy in any way, as no one else has.

I won't hold my breath, in anticipation that you will have a better cosmic heirarchy.

R6

 

I quoted your erroneous statement. You said the quantum vacuum was nothing. It is not. Whatever else you have written is of no interest to me at all and is impertinent to this thread.

 

Growing List of Trolls( Nothing Exists )

Magic realist, you are another troll

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

who is not interested in truth only throwing mental blockages in the pathways of those who actually have a sincere heart for finding such truths.

I give offer youa dictionary definition for the word 'vacum' and then offer you an "if" statement that is commonly associated with that dictionary definition and some Big Bang scenarios.

You offer nothing of significance to the conversation, because you have nothing of significance to offer to the topic.
...actually, i.e. come to think of it, by stating nothing of significance, you show us another form of the existence of nothing, in regards to the topic.....

Your also afraid that you will be incorrect in stating your beliefs, in regards to the existence of nothing, that I have correctly restated--- Nothing Exists ----. And you would be incorrect, to state otherwise.

r6

 

Zero-point Energy( Lowest Possible Energy )

Ok, lets disect MR's given quote from Wiki regarding a "vacuum".

1) "it contains no physical particles".....duh, physical = energy and if it contains no physical particles then it contains no energy.

2) "zero-point field".....duh, zero = zero aka no points no field ergo only a truly emtpy( non-occupied space ) imho. This is also reminiscent of heat death scenarios( laregest flat photon{EMRadiation}, that I have also clearly laid out my versions at Sci-forum.......

3) "physical vacuum" is opposites i.e. contradictatory ergo an incorrect statement i.e. incorrect usage of terms--- ergo is meaningless gibberrish --- to put them in the same sentence ex. holy war, or dark sunshine, or energetic vacuum etc.....

4) ok, since Magic is afraid to state his on convictions or beliefs, I'm left to dissect his given quote from wiki, so,

5) "fleeting electro-magnetic waves and particles" ergo here again Magic Realist has offered us quotes of contradictory nonsense, in regards to a true vacuum i.e. here in the latter someone is stating there are waves and paritlces and elsewhere in same quote they state there are no physical particles ergo this is just further evidence of contradictions ergo nonsense. imho

Absolute truth contains no contradictions to other absolute truths and this quote from Wiki that Magic offers us has plenty of contradictions.

I'm sorry magic but you may be better off to actually offer us what it is you believe, your convictions in this topic of existence of non-existence.

I wont' hold my breath in anticipation of your having anything vali to say my given cosmic heirarchy that clearly lays out the existence of non-occupied space near the top of of stated heirachy.

You have offered us a non-existent( nothing ) cosmic heirarchy or anything even related to the cosmic viewpoint, that I can find.

So Magic, you have offerred us the existence of non-existence, in another format, other than the my given spatial non-occupied space. Tho in a sense, since you do not offer us your cosmic scenario, then you have no cosmic heirarchy to occupy space even as pixels on a screen.

So, you kinda of validated my givens in two differrent ways, the existence of non-occupied space or your given nothing or nothingness.

Thanks for your non-help in clarifying the existence of nothing in at least two ways.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please delete: made correction and posted later.