Literal Nothing

There’s been allot of talk about the concept of nothing lately.

I thought I would just break this down as to the issues with this concept since there are quite a few perceptions revolving around the concept that are quite literally impossible.

Nothing is an imaginary state.
Nothing does not exist.

Nothing is not an “it”, nothing is not something that can be “had”, and nothing is not something to “have”.

Nothing is not a thing.

Nothing, quite literally, does not exist.

So the concept of nothing is the same concept as non-existence of any possible thing.
This is why it’s imaginary and a non-tangible.

The problem with the concept of nothing is that the word is a gramatical shortcut and has evolved into such a wide use that it has now bled into the realm of analytical science where the word simply does not have a place.

Science cannot identify nothing.
Science can only properly identify that anything recognizable is not present.
These two concepts are remarkably different from each other, yet time-and-again, they are treated as if they are the same.

Not being able to identify anything is simply stating that perception is unable to register anything identifiable to any category of things that the perception recognizes.

Nothing, on the other hand, simply doesn’t exist.

There will never be a moment where we will every find a moment or state of nothing.
You cannot find what does not exist, and nothing does not exist.

The word originates as a verbal shortcut that was glued to it’s contextual use.
For instance:

“Do you see anything?”
“No, I see nothing out there.”

This conversation is contextually short-hand verbally as the full converstation would be:

“Do you see any recognizable objects on the horizon?”
“No, I do not see any recognizable objects on the horizon.”

Or, another example:
“Do you have anything to sell?”
“No, I have nothing to sell.”

This person does not have nothing.
They simply mean that they do not have merchandise of interest to the buyer worth any value to sell.

Likewise, when someone says:
“Everything was once nothing.”

What is really being said is, Everything was once something we cannot recognize with our perception.

It is literally impossible for something to have BEEN nothing, as nothing does not exist, and therefore cannot produce any thing.

Since the concept of nothing is purely imaginary, we can validly use mathematics to represent it; we present it with the numerical value of 0.

Now, if existence equals any number we’ll just stick to a binary existence and say that existence is 1.
We will also allow for the process of creating a thing to be represented by 0.5

Now watch…this is why NOTHING (the lack of existence) cannot produce a THING.
0 x 0.5 = 0
0 x 0.5 [size=125]≠[/size] 1

It is impossible for the process OF creating some given thing to exist AS a PRODUCT of nothing.

It’s that simple.
Something does not come from nothing, because nothing does not exist.
No actual thing is capable of BEING nothing, because nothing cannot BE; nothing does not exist.

We imagine is as a state where by all existence ceases simply as a result of the word nothing contextually referring to the absence of whatever the subject matter is.

So if we start a conversation about existence and someone starts to ponder, “Well…if there’s all of these things, what is it when we don’t have any of these things; what is it when there is nothing?”

The problem with this is that there isn’t nothing.
Nothing is not something that IS.

Again, nothing is not even something that IS NOT.

Nothing simply is not capable of even this sentence because this sentence defined Nothing as IS NOT, which cannot be applied to nothing.

Nothing simply does not exist.

The most accurate symbol of nothing is this:
[size=200]≠[/size]

Nothing DOES exist though … as non-existence.

No.

Do not get the concept confused with the literal.
The concept of nothing exists as the idea of non-existence.

However, both, non-existence and nothing are the same result: nothing does not exist and non-existence does not exist.

the more words you use to describe nothing- means the more its something

No it does not.

That is the error in thinking that the word “nothing” or the concept of “nothing” is the same as nothing.

Or, let me rephrase that for you:
That is the error in thinking that the word “nothing” or the concept of “nothing” is the same as not existing.

This is flat out wrong, and largely my point.

The pompous attempt by humanity to assume that because we create a word, that whatever that word is therefore exists aside from being a word is false.

The word is only a word, and that word exists; true.
However the concept of nothing is that nothing does not exist.

It doesn’t matter how many words are used, nothing still does not exist.

Nothing exists for the same reason 0 exists in mathematics, there is a nothing.

Yes, but the fact that the, “0,” is used indicates that it is possible to have something, it just so happens you don’t.

For instance, I could have zero dollars, but that has no effect on the existence of dollars.

I could have zero apples, but there would still exist apples.

In order for mathematics to even have cause to be applied indicates that there is existence of a certain thing somewhere, but in that case, the problem doesn’t possess that certain thing.

That’s why zero can be self-defining. Anything multiplied by zero equals zero because the inference in the problem is that there is not any of that thing there.

86 * 0 = 0

The eighty-six of the thing is not present, but exists somewhere.

But, that does not make it nothing because if that thing could not be conceptualized and did not have a possibility of existing in the literal realm, then mathematics could not be applied to it.

Thus, nothing cannot define itself because for nothing to do so, nothing would have to exist which it can’t.

Wrong; for the same reason as thinking that because the word exists that therefore, nothing is a thing, or that nothing exists.

The 0 is a representative of the concept of nothing; the 0 is not nothing.
Nothing, as Pav.Model points out and as I’ve continued to state, simply doesn’t exist and therefore cannot actually be computed.

The math I showed above is theoretical representative math to show a representation of the logic ran in asserting that a value of nothing can itself produce something.
However, the math I was showing should not be confused into thinking that it represents that I can actually even attempt to apply any thing towards nothing in any method possible, because I can’t.

You cannot apply any thing towards non-existence as non-existence does not exist.
Therefore, nothing (in this context, referring to non-existence) does not exist.

Even in the most mundane forms of nothing where the word refers to a lack of something else tangible, the word does not refer to any thing, even the word, that is tangible or possible as an existence by the word itself.

Instead, it only refers to whatever is compared to nothing.
Again, as Pav. points out with nothing in regards to dollars.

im afraid ur just not understanding

No, I get it, but you continue to think that humanity is a miniature god of existence and that our thoughts are equal to the literal existence of what the concepts consider.

In buddhism there is an idea of Śūnyatā this is an idea that many buddisht themselves have problems realizing, the idea signifies that everything one encounters in life is empty of absolute identity, permanence, or an in-dwelling ‘self’. This is because everything is inter-related and mutually dependent - never wholly self-sufficient or independent. All things are in a state of constant flux where energy and information are forever flowing throughout the natural world giving rise to and themselves undergoing major transformations with the passage of time.

so even your subjective idea of what nothing is,or is not, is correct but at the same time empty of any real “ness” which makes it empty.

The idea of nothing itself is a subjective response to a phenomonal world that will be transcened, therefore is nothing.

which brings us back to the paradox of life. life is nothing, and nothing is something.

what a wonderful world.

No, the concept of nothing is not the same as identifiable absence.

Okay…

Therefore: “Nothing DOES exist though … as (the idea of) non-existence.”

So you agree with me!

Okay…

Therefore: “Nothing DOES exist though … as the result of nothing.”

So you agree with me again!

For the love of god, no.
I do not agree with you.

Nothing does not exist; end of the definition.

I don’t care how much you want nothing to exist, by the very concept of the word itself, nothing is not possible as the concept it assumes if nothing assumes a role more than non-existence.

What is the difference between saying:

1) Nothing DOES NOT EXIST.

–and–

2) Nothing DOES EXIST as non-existence.

Is there any difference at all???

sigh

Wrong.

Nothing does not exist.
Non-existence does not exist.

The concept of nothing does exist.
The concept of non-existence does exist.

The concept of nothing can be the same as the concept of non-existence.

In the contextual discussion of existence and non-existence, nothing is non-existence if by non-existence it is meant, does not exist.
The opposite is true.

Simply because the WORDS are the same MEANING does not mean that nothing or non-existence suddenly start existing.

this really is not that difficult to grasp.

The idea of nothing exist, conceptually.

but “nothing itself” cannot exist. ← this sentence itself makes “nothing” something. which is concetpualized by “me”

but nothing cant be something.

Exactly…my focus in this thread is the last sentence in your post.

this is the problem with semantics, but besides that i really enjoy focusing on your avatar good choice.

If you say that I am wrong, then why are you agreeing with me???

See here:

See, we agree!!!

Well I said this: “2) Nothing DOES EXIST as non-existence.”

So you are saying this, paraphrased: “2) Nothing DOES NOT EXIST as non-existence.”

So you are contradicting yourself…

How can a person conceive nothing if nothing DOES NOT EXIST?