On the nonexistence of nothingness

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Jun 20, 2013.

  1. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    But as absurd as it is to have to ask a question like this, which sort of nothing are you suggesting exists? The unphysical unstable state championed by the likes of Krauss (which is actually something), or the complete absence of absolutely anything and everything?

    Hilariously, and pertinently, this question answers itself.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    Both nothings are the same. To call it something would be a contradiction. It is however a state not a thing. It is the complete absence of anything and everything.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Scientific nothingness is an unstable state. Philosophical nothingness on the other hand isn't anything. There's no it, therefore there's no instability, or any other conceivable (or even inconceivable) property or quality.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,798
    We might construe non-consciousness as a case of "nothingness" -- the absence of empirical and intellectual evidence of any beinghood. The conventional "what matter is like to itself" if one regards death to be a return to that (in anti-panpsychist / extinctivist beliefs). But accordingly a "what it is like" isn't even applicable -- there would be no conception / identification of such sensationless void as "nothing". So the latter is purely a pragmatic label for human hand-wavings at what follows or preceded the experience and reflective thought of conscious living. Not a literal condition of overall brainless existence confirming itself as absence, an empty state, etc, with a "showing" and understanding of itself as blankness.
     
  8. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    I was referring to nothing as a distinct realm existing outside our universe in my reply to rr6. What are your thoughts on that?
     
  9. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    Could it be that nothingness is infinite and eternal while something (universe) is spatially and temporally finite since it was born out of nothing?
     
  10. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
     
  11. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    747
    What is Nothing and what is Something is relative to how much of it there is.
     
  12. absols Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    the problem is what u dont separate objective from u, u the watcher or will or conscious are not objective, u must do stuffs realize them to get in touch with objective existence

    by confusing everything with u, the concept of nothing become a theory that u will invent

    nothing is about objective, the lack of absolute thing

    but it is not the lack of infinite superiority which is freedom, so nothing is of course true

    like u can try to experience being nothing objectively, and u will see how it is true
     
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    How can it be relative?
    Surely anything more than nothing is something, no matter how little.
     
  14. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Creation vs Existence

    macro-micro infinite, non-occupied space, does not relate too our fnite occupied space called God/Universe i.e. they are in contradistinction to each other.

    Our Occupied space/God/Universe has a dynamic, fluctuating shape and that shapes the infinite, non-occupied space from within, ergo that is the closet we can come to saying, that, there being a relationship between non-occupied space and occupied space.

    ..........physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed....and is inherently related to structural and systemic integrity ergo finite.

    Ideas of infinite physical/energy induces ideas of God-like entity, beyond our finite Universe, that is eternally creating energy/physical( occupied space ).

    Existence of infinite non-occupied space and finite occupied space just IS that way and has nothing to do with creation of physical/energy.


    This idea of creation, partly stems from the unique ability of humans having access to complex mind/intellect ergo humans have concepts and can concieve of a finite Universe, with a God-like entity outside of the conceptually finite Universe that is then concieved of--- and believe to exist ---as having created our finite Universe and/or eternally creating infinite physical/energy ergo defying a cosmic law/principle of energy/physical cannot be created nor destroyed.

    God = Universe ergo God/Universe.

    It appears to me, that we have two basic kinds of religous zealots(?) or some word/term I haven't put my finger on yet;

    1) one set believes there exists a God beyond our finite Universe, and created our finite Universe,

    2) the other set believes there exists a God-like entity that exists beyond our finite Universe, that is eternally creating physical/energy to fufil there beliefs, needs and desires, for a, or of an infinite occupied space of physical/energy.

    Non-occupied space and occupied space is the top heirarchy duality set regarding space.

    Non-occupied space is one of three primary kinds of metaphysical.

    Metaphysical Existence of 3 types;

    00) abstract concepts of mind/intellect ex cosmic laws/principles,
    -----------------
    01) non-occupied space,

    02) gravitational spacetime,

    The above 00, 01 and 02 are beyond/meta our finite physical/energy God/Universe.

    How "much" occupied space is irrelevant to macro-micro infinite non-occupied space.

    The definition for the word contradistinction includes the word quality, but non-occupied space has no quality, has no state, has no properties etc......

    It never ceases to amaze me how few people can grasp the simple concept of non-occupied space that embraces our finite Universe.

    Fuller thought it was because humans only experience finite stuff ergo they can only relate to finite stuff, for most part, in there thinking.



    r6
     
  15. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    747
    Not if the entire "universe" is comprised solely of infinately densley packed marshmallow atoms. If it' all marshmallow instead of empty space how is that any different than Nothing.

    I will go even further: if it is a completely binaryuniverse of absolute space on one side an absolute occupied space on the other,ow much different from Nothig is it really?All that is is two competing forms or states of Nothingness. Which is basically what our universe is.
     
  16. absols Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    u keep talking about things as if it is not u

    bc u mean evil ways by forcing forms of realities to stay still

    so u mean urself as the creator too which is ridiculous

    thing is what is present there cant b more present then u

    that is what the concept relative is for, relative existence to self present freedom


    in parallel to absolute existence to objective present free reality

    it is wether u or all, even if u realize urself objectively it would b to all

    that is why existence is always relative

    the all freedom is from the other side while it is first true superiority so always the objective reason

    that is why creations are only through a lot of crimes and abuses they are of nothing and fake
     
  17. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    747
    sorry for all the typos above. am on a kindle and for some reason this site will not let e go back and edit.
     
  18. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    Taken from CTMU wiki:

    The fundamental entity of SCSPL reality is the "syntactic operator", or unit of self-processing information.[35] Because, argues Langan, cognition is just the specific form of information processing that occurs in a mind, information processing can be described as "generalized cognition" and self-processing information as "infocognition".[36] So in the CTMU, reality is a dual-aspect monism consisting of one substance (infocognition) with two aspects (information and cognition); space is a configuration of syntactic operators, and time is the activity of these operators as they process themselves and each other.
     
  19. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    Internet sensation Analog57 wrote that the universe is a strange loop.
     
  20. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    I disagree. Unlike space, nothing has no features such as dimension or time. It exists as something distinct from existence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
  21. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    "Conspansive duality, the role of which in the CTMU is somewhat analogous to that of the Principle of Equivalence in General Relativity, is the only escape from an infinite ectomorphic �tower of turtles�. Were the perceptual geometry of reality to lack a conspansive dual representation, motion of any kind would require a fixed spatial array or ectomorphic �background space� requiring an explanation of its own, and so on down the tower. Conspansion permits the universe to self-configure through temporal feedback. Each conspanding circle represents an event-potential corresponding to a certain combination of law and state; even after one of these intrinsically atemporal circles has �inner-expanded� across vast reaches of space and time, its source event is still current for anything that interacts with it, e.g. an eye catching one of its photons. At the same time, conspansion gives the quantum wave function of objects a new home: inside the conspanding objects themselves. Without it, the wave function not only has no home, but fails to coincide with any logically evolving system of predicates or �laws of physics�. Eliminate conspansion, and reality becomes an inexplicable space full of deterministic worldlines and the weighty load of problems that can be expected when geometry is divorced from logic.

    Where reality is characterized by dual-aspect infocognitive monism (read on), it consists of units of infocognition reflecting a distributed coupling of transductive syntax and informational content. Conspansion describes the �alternation� of these units between the dual (generalized-cognitive and informational) aspects of reality, and thus between syntax and state. This alternation, which permits localized mutual refinements of cognitive syntax and informational state, is essential to an evolutionary process called telic recursion. Telic recursion requires a further principle based on conspansive duality, the Extended Superposition Principle, according to which operators can be simultaneously acquired by multiple telons, or spatiotemporally-extensive syntax-state relationships implicating generic operators in potential events and opportunistically guiding their decoherence.

    http://isotelesis.blogspot.ca/2011/01/duality-intertheoretic-relations.html
     
  22. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Noting Differrent From Something( Marshmellow A. )

    Hi Cosmic totem, the differrence between an occupied space of "marshmellow atoms" and non-occupied space, is that with occupied space, we have conditions, qualities, properties and states that allow for fluctuations of the occupied space or are themselves fluctuate-able.

    Non-occupied space has no qualities, no properties, no state, no phase, no charge, no anti-charge, no spin, no twist, no etc.... ergo no possibility of fluctuating anything, because it is true spatial/spacial nothingness.

    Occupied space( Universe ) may expand-contract because the non-occupied space has no properties to restrain/contrain.

    r6
     
  23. Fork Banned Banned

    Messages:
    319
    rr6, how did life evolve from pure energy or even pure nothingness?
     

Share This Page