On the nonexistence of nothingness

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

  1. rr6 Banned Banned

    Pure Spatial Nothingness( Non-occuped Space )

    Biological life and any evolutions thereof, are irrelevant to non-occupied space--- your pure 'spatia'l nothingness ----.

    I don't know what you think "pure energy", however, again, I think whatever you pure energy is is irrelevant to non-occupied space.

    Pure energy may be what some around here call energy and infer/imply that it is what exists before any alledged big bang and that this 'energy'--- pure or not ---exists as an macro-micron infinite occupied space.

    For a moment just put aside those <macro-micro infinite occupied space> ideas.

    Humans subcatagorize physical/energy into an initial set of two;

    1) fermions i.e. fermionic matter, and
    ..ergo fractional spins---

    2) bosons i.e.bosonic forces--- whole number spin-1 and spin-2 ---
    ... gravity is presumed to fall into this cataory as the odd-bird out spin-3 boson.....

    In heat death scenarios--- via entropy ---all ferminonic matter is believed to come-apart and become one very large, very flat, least energy photon--- i.e. longest possible wave frequency ---.

    So let us give a least energy photon a texticonic symbol of a wave( ~ ).

    So now perhaps yourself and others believe, that, before the alledged big bang, there was Universe of energy or pure energy and let us say it is a least energy photon( ~ ) or collective set of least energy photons( ~~~ ).


    Here above I use dots as for formatting purpose only. The texticon waves~~~~ are meant to be a photonic field.

    I believe that gravitational spacetime needs to be added to either scenario using a photonic wave~;


    Or as ... (~~~~~) ..... i.e. gravity coheres physical/energy, pure or not.

    Non-occupied space and occupied space is the top of the spatial heirarchy. Simple not complex. imho

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fork Banned Banned

    I.e. non-existence exists.

    Consciousness is a thing that exists and non-consciousness is nothing that also exists.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fork Banned Banned

    rr6 two more questions, how can space be infinite non-occupied if there exists things within the universe's space?


    Do you believe nothing must be something otherwise it could not exist, even if it was nothing?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fork Banned Banned

    rr6, I do not think nothingness is even a space. It is purely nothing.
  8. rr6 Banned Banned

    Soace Is All Around, If You Could But Percieve( Moody Bluuu's )

    Non-occupied space = nothing( physicaless/energyless ) Fork.

    Occupied space = something( physical/energy ).

    Go back and start at the top my cosmic heirachy Fork. Do you know what a comos is? Space, occupied and non-occupied.

    Go back and read my cosmic heirarchy and keep your mind focused as your not keeping track very well.

    Or read the any of the posters non-existent cosmic heirarchies..;--)

  9. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Okay, then how about non occupied space and no space? Or "fully occupied" space where there is no room for atoms or even the particles that comprise atoms? Material of a density that does not allow movement of or even differentiation at a quantum level? Sort of the same principle of a black hole where light doesn't escape. A sliding scale of material density with absolute density on one end and zero density on the other?
  10. rr6 Banned Banned

    "U"niverse = Space( 2 catagories ) + mind/intellecty( cosmic law/principles )

  11. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    I don't see how it could be a realm / domain / environment unless "Nothing" is simply intended as a quasi-random name / sign for a proposed extracosmic territory (like Fido or Mittens or Saturn or Liechtenstein).

    If one claims that existence has a boundary, is finite, then "nothing" might be used to denote where it ends. But it would not be a literal demarcation / separating as if "something else begins here" or a "what lies beyond all definitions of being" commences from this point on.

    If the Pythagorean / Platonic tradition grabbed the word "nothing" and asserted that it refers to the nonphysical conditions for material phenomena (intelligibles like rules / laws, concepts, or formulaic powers that bring about extended places and their occupants), then this still doesn't seem to quite fit. While such engendering powers might lack location and perceivable character, their asserted effects of producing and regulating the tangible / measurable world would indicate that they are not "wholly absent" and thus could be classifiable as existing or part of the "something".

    We might make wild gesticulations with the arms and hands to support a set called "nothing", for housing the possibility of what could be but is not / never has been yet. But this at best seems some kind of logical invention added to the landscape of reason or rational thought, rather than a literal realm (existing in word only, nominalism).

    Where meaning of "nothing" (as opposed to just being used as a symbol or placeholder) has practical application, again, is in regard to lack of experience. Like the visual emptiness of blindness or the silence of deafness; or its everyday, ultra-casual ascription to an empty box or blank canvass [appearance only]. And to the complete non-consciousness inherent in death ("back to a less complex state of unknowing matter") -- an absence of all that falls out of sensations and intellect being declared emergent / non-fundamental.
  12. Fork Banned Banned


    I like your response. C.M. Langan proposes that reality is fundamentally a mind and claims that it pre-exists or exists first before a physical reality could be manifested. Hence the CTMU regards nothing as pure potential and that mind or consciousness is the only true reality.
  13. sanam5511 Registered Member

    My heart is so small
    it's almost invisible.
    How can You place
    such big sorrows in it?
    "Look," He answered,
    "your eyes are even smaller,
    yet they behold the world.
  14. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    The state opposed to a thing is "unknown", not "nothing". Nothing is simply word-play, there can be no such thing as nothing, there can be no such existence as non-existence.

    If we think of everything that exists as things that can be known, then what we think of as nothing are simply things "that can't be known".

    If we peer deep into the fundamentals of physics, we get further into "unknown" and not further into "nothing", on quantum scale things become fundamentally indeterminable, which is also what happens on a macroscopic scale when we encounter the event horizon at the beginning of the big bang, similar to the event horizon we find surrounding a black hole (which could arguably also be "nothing" in some way, or at least infinitely dense).
  15. rr6 Banned Banned

    Things vs No-things

    Physical/energy = a thing that occupies a space

    No thing(s) = a non-occupied space.

    Ex if the boundary/horizon, of our finite Universe, is known, then we can triangulate( XYZ ) a trajectory to any position outside of our finite Universe, and assume that our expanding Universe may eventually move to that position that is currently a non-occupied space, outside of/beyond our finite Universe.

    Fuller was very clear that we live in a macro-finite physical/energy--- ergo occupied space ---Universe.

    Where he and I differ, is his allowance of micro-infinite physical/energy Universe via his multiplication-by-division ideas.

    < > = infinite non-occupied space

    O = finite occupied space

    < O > a rationally logical conclusion for the integrity of systemic finiteness, that no one has yet to give a rationally logical counter argument that would invalidate my givens as stated. This is because none exist.

    To further define and clarify, we add omni-constraining, omi-embraceing, ultra-micro, gravitational spacetime into the texticon mix ergo;

    <( O )>

  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Nothingess is the state of being once you remove existence.
    It is the experience of those that can no longer experience.
    The set of all things that are not part of a set.
    The things hoped for by those that can not hope.
    The things fought for by those that do not fight.

    Nothingness exists only as a concept.
    A concept that is defined by the absence of everything that gives rise to the concept.
    It has no relative meaning.
    It has no objective meaning.
    It simply is not.

    Even scientific nothingness is just a concept of something that can not exist.
    It is the infinitely unstable.
    It is the zero on a list of 1 to infinity of things that exist.

    Does non-existence exist as anything other than a concept?
    And can non-existence of everything even be a concept when it requires us to conceptualise the non-existence of the concept of concepts?

    And now my brain hurts.
    Time to lie down.
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I think that what's being called "scientific nothingness" might better be called "vacuum" or something like that. Whatever the physical vacuum is, it does seem to support geometrical properties, fields and quantum mechanical pair-production. It remains the sort of something that can meaningfully be said to assume states. It's also assumed that mathematics and logic still exist and continue to apply to it.

    I think that nothingness, properly understood, isn't a state of being at all. It certainly isn't a mysterious state of (non)being that existing things enter into after they cease existing, or emerge from when they begin to exist.

    Non-existence in this more proper sense can only be conceived of imaginatively, by cognizers with the appropriate powers, from the point of view of the familiar sort of existence that's the site of temporal change.

    Of course, things might conceivably be more complicated than that. There's the problem of the ontological status of possibilities. Do unrealized possibilities enjoy some kind of shadowy existence whose physical effects we begin to observe in QM's double-slit experiment? It's possible to imagine a modal multiverse of effectively infinite possibility, in which only particular possibilities (this observed universe) actually manifest themselves (by wave-function collapse or whatever).

    But even highly speculative theories like that seem to me to only be expanding the scope of what exists, extending it to new realms like unrealized possibilities. It still isn't addressing the cessation of... everything... including such a multiverse, of all of its possibilities, of quantum-mechanical formalisms, of mathematics and of logic itself.

    As to what would exist after such an absolute cessation, I'm inclined to say that the phrase 'what would exist after' is grammatically misleading. It would be better to speak of reality simply stopping at that point, without any 'after'.
  18. rr6 Banned Banned

    Finite Integrity vs Infinite Non-occupied Space

    There closet others can come to having a valid counter-argument to my givens, is offering one fact, that we do not observe a non-occupied space.

    So this is why we are left to speculate via extrapolations based on what we do observe along with rational logic.

    There is no rational logic for validating infinite physical/energy Universe, so we are left with some offering us and illogical set of quasi-like poetry to rather than rational logic and obvious extrapolations of what we appear to have observed.

    < ( O ) >

    Simple not complex. imho

    Those who see infinite physical/energy are really no differrent than those who think a God outside of our finite Universe created our finite Universe.

    Integrity is finite, infinity is a concept and non-occupied space. Simple not complex conclusion for those who using rationality and logic extrapolated out from observations of know finite Universe.

    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  19. Fork Banned Banned

    Yes, they do.
  20. rr6 Banned Banned

  21. Tenver Registered Member

    Reality to me is only a concept. Reality is what is.

    Existence is the presence of something. What were before existence? It's hard to answer. Minds has been cracking at it for millennia

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . If I'd had to go for an intuitive answer, I'd probably say either nothingness or something about chaos. The laws of nature may have been created in the same coincidence that existence were created.

    To me, determinism has a definite and very restricting problem of explaining itself. It simply can't do it, so something else must've taken its place for a while. There seems no plausible alternative other than chaos of law and essence. Determinism would not be able to co-exist with true chaos, so if one assumes that determinism rules this universe of ours, then another explanation must be found for the creation of determinism. There are pieces missing in the logic puzzle and noone has come up with a satisfying answer to the general philosophical understanding yet. Either determinism must explain the full logic circuit for its bounds of existence or it is rendered entirely false there. No plausible alternative to determinism exists, though, when the logic circuit is followed imho. Only a form of true chaos with no bounds and no restrictions would be able to create anything out of nothingness in a way that it cannot explain itself either except to exist as a potential idea.

    Kind of problematic really lol. If we are to assume determinism is correct, how did it come to be, because it cannot explain itself ever?

    If existence is taken as the presence of something, then non-existence is purely a speculative notion and might in actuality only much reside in the minds of humans and possible similar aliens as ideas. Nothingness would as a concept be able to exist, simply by being the presence of nothing and be void in its true form. Both nothingness and existence would be part of reality and non-existence as well if it is taken to be a speculative form of ideas in man f.ex. imo

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To go futher on in this edit, I'm not sure about that last paragraph. Reality is a concept. Reality would be defined imo as what is. Existence would be assumed to be able to make a case for the existence of anything else. Determinism has been observed again and again. No alternative seems plausible and determinism cannot come up short in one of its calculations, else it would flip the entire thing over immediately (like trying to calculate with infinity). No alternative seems plausible to determinism except true chaos and true chaos cannot co-exist with determinism (order). As such, determinism seems the only plausible (and observed) alternative. Non-existence would only be a speculative point, much like non-reality. Infinity cannot exist in reality as that would as well flip the whole concept of reality over. Nothingness as a concept could be true, but it would then again just be rather pointless as it would contain nothing and as such be a completely moot point. So reality must perhaps start with existence (at least the scientifically meaningful part of it). So it just matters how did determinism come about and how do you explain that which cannot explain itself? Well, right back at the start again.
  22. Rav Valued Senior Member

    I suspect that the ontological status of all the supposed features of the quantum world will be decided through the ongoing development of newer and more novel forms of experimentation and subsequent analysis of the results thereof. At the moment I think we are relying far too much on the metaphysical picture that a literal interpretation of the mathematical models we use to try to describe it paints.

    That's not to say that our mathematical models aren't wonders to behold in terms of their descriptive and predictive powers. I do indeed say that merely as someone who has had them dumbed down for me by great science writers like Brian Greene and Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss (just to mention a few) but it is nonetheless perfectly clear that even the most wonderfully elegant and useful mathematical model is not necessarily (and maybe not ever) telling us the whole story about everything that nature is actually really doing.

    I agree. But these days I feel bold enough to go that one step further and declare that because nonexistence isn't anything, at all, it's both logically and actually impossible for there not to be something. In other words, somethingness is the only state of affairs. The now fashionable concept of scientific nothingness fits in just fine as the simplest most fundamental form of that somethingness.
  23. rr6 Banned Banned

    Existence of Non-occupied and Occupied Space Are Relatively Simple Concepts

    Space: of two primary kinds existence

    01) existence of non-occupied---macro-micro infinite set of nothing/void/empty space( duhh ), spatially beyond--- i.e. outside of the the following,

    02) occupied space aka physical/energy and quasi-physical gravity---finite Universe

    this is simple set of concepts to grasp and still amazes my how few people can grasp such a conceptually simple set of ideas associated with the word space and its existence as either,

    00) "U"niverse,

    001) Universe and/or

    002) individuals local universe semi-local sphere of influence and awareness/consciousness.

    Non-occupied space cannot have a phase/state-- i.e. no color, no temperature etc --- other than its existence of being non-occupied space and a shape that is defined from within, only by can only our finite Universe of occupied space( physical/energy ) and quasi-physical gravity.

    Finite occupied space exists eternally and this is borne-out by our discovery of one very simple concept to grasp and that concept is related to a finite set of absolute cosmic law/principle, wherein we find the following;

    ..physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed.....ergo eternally existent ergo eternally inviolate.

    Causal determism is eternally existent in complement to the eternally existent finite occupied space we call Universe.

    It never ceases to amaze me that regarless of how many differrent ways I express these relatively simple concepts, in hierarchy list and outlines, most cannot just grasp the core basis as stated.

    They always going off making convoluted mixings of what can only be one rationally logical way of interpretating the information.

    Finite occupied space( Universe ) exists eternally ergo a collectively finite set of time related quanta or there combinations exist, within a and infinite non-occupied space.

    What part of that statement can mind/inelligence accessing humans not grasp?

    Even the few who can grasp it, then either pretend they don't get it--- because their ego blocks their acknowledgement of such ---or they disagree, yet never offer any rationally logical alternative.

    Only finite occupied space, and those operations of such space, can be associated with the word integrity i.e. integrity is specific to a finite occupied space and systems operating within that space ergo the existence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics

    ...physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed......

    The truth is available to those humans willing to acknowledge and acccept.

    The concept of integrity is antihesis of the word infinity. imho


Share This Page