On Nothing in a void.

Give me an example of nothing without relating it to something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You said something but it would seem that you meant to say nothing.
Am I correct to take your something as nothing?
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you an alter ego of Krash, by any chance"

[shakes head]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Might be cross purpose misunderstanding here.

My NOTHING is a concept.

Tying it to SOMETHING physical gives you a gazillion items of which you can have none.

Lump those gazillion together and they stand alone as SOMETHING without having to say either you have none of each of the gazillion or you have none of the whole group of gazillion.

If I say to a friend 'I have 3 Christmas T shirts' I am sure he does not think 'If he didn't have those T shirts he would have NOTHING T shirts'

A better thought would be NONE which is not same as NOTHING.

Humpty Dumpty who can't find Poe who has turned to nothing.

 

I'm inclined to agree, since only existing things can exist and nothing isn't an existing thing.

I consider it kind of a limit-concept.

Consider absences. I might say that there are no spoons in my drawer without having to believe that 'no-spoons' is a particularly occult kind of something that does exist in my drawer.

Now imagine the absence of absolutely everything. No material objects, no physical fields, no spatial or temporal extension, no abstract laws of physics, no mathematical relationships... anything that can be said to exist in any conceivable way... gone.

A physical void, a vacuum, would be the absence of physical matter. But it would still have extension, geometrical properties, play host to fields and events like quantum pair-production, and presumably whatever happens in the vacuum would still be subject to the laws of physics and to mathematical and logical relationships. Calling vacuums 'nothing' is like observing that there are no spoons in my drawer and pronouncing it empty, while it's still got knives and forks in it.

Not directly. Presumably words and referring-expressions refer to things. The word 'apple' refers to apples. The word 'coin' refers to coins.

But when we are talking about nothing in the strong sense of the absence of everything, then our words can't refer any longer since there wouldn't be anything left for them to refer to.

That's why I think of 'nothing' as a limit-concept. It's a boundary that we can push existing existing things past so that they go away, without anything existing on the other side of the boundary or the boundary even having an 'other side' at all. It's not a dark and empty void or a peculiarly occult state of being. It's just where reality... ends.

Imagine some of the strongest ideas of the 'big bang', concepts that imagine it as the beginning of space and time. People ask 'what was before the big bang'. But in this kind of picture, there wasn't any 'before the big bang'. The origin event is the boundary limit of time itself.

 

Not.

Can't have a little bit of SOMETHING.

Either have SOMETHING (and there are a gazillion somethings around) and whatever you have is SOMETHING not a little bit of something.

Poe still has nothing, not a little bit of nothing. :

 

Good and evil has nothing to do with the concept of nothing.

You can only have nothing in the absence of something.

Why not?

I didn't say it did.

How can you have a handful of nothing?

Is this an insult.?

Jan.

 

Not even knowing who Krash is I can truely say no.

Is Krash short for Krashdassion?

Humpty Dumpty not alto to anything

 

Never said it did

NOTHING is a concept which does NOT rely on a material something.

Because a little bit of something is still something.

A hand with nothing in it.

No????

 

Existence is fundamental (in the broadest sense of subsuming material / spatial types, immaterial / potent-principle types, etc). Since anything asserted to be prior in rank to it would already contradictorily be an instance of existing.

"Nothing" functionally indicates that an ordering framework is just empty of a specific item or items rather than literal absence of everything. Such as a room lacking furniture but still containing air, dust particles, cosmic rays, etc. Or a symbolic system lacking a value in a slot (blank placeholder). The background condition of space itself or that of an abstract organization would be instantiating "something" themselves even if / when they were regulating templates totally vacant of content.[*]

- - - - - - - - -

[*] The view of space as falling out of the relationships of entities doesn't lend itself to being mistakenly treated as "nothing" to begin with, due to presence of said entities. Ergo only mentioning the conception of it as a coordinating background for the eventual possibility of co-existing entities.

 

But that "nothing" is related to a quote.

 

no thing

 

Still relating to a quote.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

Related to a time and an avatar.

 

My posts aren’t supposed to be there and you the one relating my posts to the quote time and avatar.

I only posted to communicate that I had the answer and it was to say nothing.

 

No..every post is related to a time and avatar. You are no exception.

 

I suggest that there is no place where we find nothing in so far as there is always something.
In the most empty part of space there is something.
I find such interesting.
Alex

 

Nothing doesn't exist. Which is to say, nothing is nothing. Which is to say: There is only Being---exuberant, immediately accessible, and infinite. Enjoy..

 

Well . . . . . perhaps 'nothing' is utilized similar to 'infinite' - as a mathematical construct to convey a qualitative linguistic meaning - but actually having no quantitative value