On the nonexistence of nothingness

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

  1. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The first problem is that nobody really understands what you are on about because grasping the fundamentals of effective communication is something that is quite obviously beyond you.

    The second problem is that when people try to explain this to you, you simply write them off as trolls. Meanwhile you complain about how no-one can "grasp" what you're saying.

    This makes you a complete fucking idiot.

    Seriously. It does.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Rav = troll = Nohting New and Nothing Substanatial Significantl To Offer This Topic

    rav, typicall troll response wasting of bandwidth i.e. you do not even address the first word of anything I've stated.

    Come back and talk to me when;

    1) you choose to drop your troll behaviour

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    2) you lean how to actually use a dictiaonary and actually references anything I've stated --- not lilkely that will happen

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ---,

    3) you begin by showing us you can even begin to grasp a single word I've stated. To date you nor any other troll has shown no evidence that you can grasp nor desire to comprehend even a single word of any thing I've stated,

    4) ergo you have offer nothing valid to say in regards to any of my comments,

    5) that is why you refuse to address them specifically, because you have nothing valid so you offer nothing valid.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    At least I've met some snobs who admit their snobs, i've never met a troll who admits their a troll.

    Please forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for you and-or any other troll around here, to offer anything of valid significance to anything I've stated. Trolls need not apply.

    r6



     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I understand every single actual dictionary word you've used. It's the ideas that you are trying to convey with them that are unclear.

    In other words, you're not even paying attention to the nature of my objection.

    Actually I am telling you the single most important thing that you need to know if you actually want to discuss your ideas.

    Clearly, however, you don't want to hear it. Ergo, you have nothing valid to offer in the form of effectively communicated ideas.

    And you need not post. Seriously. In terms of what people can glean from you, not posting would be just as effective.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    I've told him virtually the same, a couple of times in other forums.

    Doesn't listen. Just goes on with his same ol' same ol' squiggles.
     
  8. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Here, let me show you what I'm getting at:

    First of all, the existence of an infinite set of nothing? Unless you are talking about the scientific nothingness of physicists like Krauss, you can't say that nothing exists. It's a contradiction. In any case, it's not clear.

    And what do you mean by "macro-micro infinite set"? Are you saying that the subatomic world, along with the universe at large, are an infinite set? But I thought we were talking about nothing? What is micro nothing? How does it differ from macro nothing?

    What are you talking about?

    What do you mean by quasi-physical? Something that looks like it's physical, but isn't really physical? If what you're talking about isn't entirely physical, what is it? Part spirit? Where is the hard evidence for that? Do you expect us to just admit this assumption into the discussion unchallenged? Or do you actually mean something else entirely? And what is quasi-physical gravity specifically? Are we talking hybridized spirit/matter gravitons? Or are you saying that gravitational fields are fundamentally the spirit energy of God manifested in a way that merely seems to be physical?

    Oh, and the universe is finite is it? How do you know? Finite in what way? Spatially? Finite in terms of the amount of energy that might exist whether it be presently manifested as matter or not? Temporally finite?

    What are you talking about?

    Do you see how many legitimate questions need to be asked just to try to parse two of your sentences? I can't be fucked. I doubt anyone else can either. It's not my responsibility, or anyone else's, to expend that sort of effort. It's your job, as a contributor who presumably wants to be understood, to be more specific and comprehensive.

    Now, again, you can either take this to heart, or continue in futility.
     
  9. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I wonder who isn't a troll in his book?
     
  10. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    No Squiggles In Last Post Except in Lakons Mind...Typical Troll---non-substance

    No "squiggle" in my last post, rather only in Lakons troll mind, ergo more evidence of baseless troll dribble distorting of truth. What a sad lack of integrity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    imho

    Trolls cannot harness enough moral integrity to repeat a single word Ive stated much less and actual associated concepts......sad lack of integrity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    At least snobs occasionally admit their snobs, trolls never admit there trolls.

    r6

     
  11. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Lol ..

    I like your post #105. Full marks for taking the time. I've had an urge to do the same with one or two of his squiggles, but quickly realised the futility of such a mission.
     
  12. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Space the Initial Frontier

    Mind/intelligence = concepts of the following space(s)

    -----------------
    Space = non-occupied( infinite ) and occupied( finite )
    ------------------

    Meta = beyond ergo metaphysical mind/intelligence is beyond occupied space and beyond non-occupied.

    Metaphysical mind/intelligence is the concept of the above space(s) and not space itself.

    These are such simple concepts to grasp yet I still come across so many who cannot comprehend these simple concepts, for whatever various reasons.

    1) higher educational preconditioning--too educated in some case so cannot understand simple concepts,

    2) ego block to simple concepts and truths because they do not understand them, slow to understand them, or did not make the initial conception so cannot take the credit for concept,

    3) lack of moral integrity and denies simple truths irrespective of obvious, logically rational and common sense ergo just being obstinate irrational fundamentalist-- relgious or otherwise ---

    4) lack of education ergo retarded abilities to track even simplist concepts. #4 being the opposite of #1 but having the same resultant.

    r6



    r6
     
  13. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    I simply love this exchange...

     
  14. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    Hmmm....I see

    Nothing ;

    The exact opposite of something.

    Nothing has none of the qualities of something.

    No depth , breadth , movement and the ability to change.

    Nothing cannot change what it is.
     
  15. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623

    https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/universe-bubble-lets-check
     
  16. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    Non-sense


    Non-sense
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,855
    I have not heard the definition of Nothingness as a "timeless permittive condition"
     
  18. Samaran11 Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    The idea of matter being continuously created out of nothing may appear crazy at first. However, as Hoyle was quick to point out, no one knew where matter had appeared from in the big bang cosmology, either. The only difference, he explained, was that in the big bang scenario all the matter was created in one explosive beginning, while in the steady state model matter has been created at a constant rate throughout an infinite time and is still being created at the same rate today. Hoyle contended that the concept of continuous creation of matter (when put in the context of a specific theory) was much more attractive than creation of the universe in the remote past, since the latter implied that observable effects had arisen from “causes unknown to science.”
     
  19. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    There's no evidence to suggest that any new matter is being created today.
     
  20. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Is this thread based upon truth and correctness i.e. to provide a correct answer means to possess the SAME answer. My question is this: by there NOT BEING NOTHING do you mean they cancel each other? For example should there be EVERYTHING, then does the possession of ALL cancel everything to leave NOTHING. I have believed in a primordial non-existence for years i.e. there was nothing (which cannot be) and so something was created (and was eventually discarded) once again leaving nothing (which cannot be) and so due to this impossibility (nothing) ANYTHING was possible. However I believe differently now.

    As for the opening post, I agree: a conundrum indeed. We are led to believe that the destruction of something (whatever that may have been) led to the creation of SOMETHING, and an impossibility. However how can we know what the conditions were that led to creation: if time ITSELF did not exist then destruction leads one to the beginning given that there was nothing else there. How can we know?
     
  21. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Anything is indeed possible. The mind can spawn anything if granted a reflexive basis for anything to occur. Such a reflexive basis would be nothingness.
     
  22. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    I had a clear space of nothingness.

    I said "let there be an extra slice of pizza".

    Ask Schroedinger's cat if my slice is on the way.
     
  23. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    A being is one. To be is to be real.

    3. The Role of Substance in the Study of Being Qua Being


    If the term ‘being’ were ambiguous in the way that ‘table’ is, Aristotle’s science of being qua being would be as impossible as a science of tables qua tables. But, Aristotle argues in Γ.2, ‘being’ is not ambiguous in this way. ‘Being’, he tells us, is ‘said in many ways’ but it is not merely (what he calls) ‘homonymous’, i.e., sheerly ambiguous. Rather, the various senses of ‘being’ have what he calls a ‘pros hen’ ambiguity—they are all related to a single central sense. (The Greek phrase ‘pros hen’ means “in relation to one.”)

    Aristotle's Metaphysics
     

Share This Page