Being(/existence/the infinite) and nothingness(/the nothing)

In the mostly inane thread INTELLIGENCE LEADS TO BELIEF IN HIGHER POWER, a user named Knox enlightened me in a way about infinity and the nothing (or “nothingness”). His “bottom line” was “that if you deny the concept of nothing, you affirm the existence of the infinite in some respect.”

Although I myself have told others ad nauseam that the nothing was precisely that, nothing, I seem to have fallen into the trap myself. As Jakob pointed out to me yesterday, if something has come into existence “out of nothing”, then it has not come into existence at all, as nothing is simply that, nothing… In the case of existence itself, this does not mean that it does not exist, but that it has “always” existed (not necessarily in time as we know it, but simply causally). So existence coming from nothing and existence always having existed is one and the same thing.

I said: “In the case of existence itself, this does not mean” etc. How can I say that with such certainty? Simply because I experience (or hallucinate) it (and even if I hallucinate it, my hallucination exists).

At this point I had another insight, that completely alters the direction of this post. I will therefore finish this post right away.

That’s very interesting, but denying one thing doesn’t necessarily affirm another thing.

Okay, so you’re saying that existence, inevitably, has always been. But, that doesn’t justify the following logical leap: “Therefore, there is a higher power.” So, the argument isn’t about God at all, as it indirectly was in the thread you linked us to.

I’m not clearly understanding what you mean with this part.

You can continue with the other insight; I don’t think other users will mind that.

~~Moral Jeff

It does if there are only two alternatives, one of which you must choose (i.e., one of which it must be).

As I said, most of that thread is inane. The OP itself is inane. My argument isn’t about God at all, indeed.

Well, if something has not come into existence, that might mean it has never existed. But in the case of existence (the world) itself, it evidently does exist. So not having come into existence here means having always existed, not having never existed.

And it does not matter whether the world I see is real or a hallucination. If it’s all a hallucination, then the hallucination at least evidently exists.

I have started a different thread here.

If you deny the concept of nothing, then you are only denying the concept of nothing. You aren’t accepting something simultaneously… but only denying one thing: the concept of nothing.

As I said, most of that thread is inane. The OP itself is inane. [i]My[/i] argument isn't about God at all, indeed.

Oh, good. Well, the OP of your linked thread made a terrible logical leap, and it was kind of obvious, too. From infinite existence… and then BUNGY JUMPING to… there is a higher power… with absolutely nothing relevant in between. In short, the original thread’s OP was entertaining on a fictional level.

I’ll have to use a direct analogy, but… if I never ate rice, that means I have always eaten rice. Basically, your final sentence in the above quote makes that same leap.

True. Take dreams for example… they’re real… not to everybody, but to the individual’s experiencing the dream. God exists, too… in the minds of Christians and “children of God”.

It’s a double negation.

Your analogy is unsound. It should be: “if I never began to eat rice, that means that either I have never eaten rice, or I have always been eating rice.” In the case of the existence of existence, which is a fact (i.e., your eating rice is a fact), it means existence has always existed (i.e., you have always been eating rice).

If you’re doing one thing, though, it doesn’t mean you’re doing something else at the same time. For example, if I’m arrested, I can deny incarceration… but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I accept mainstream society, my only other alternative (2 alternatives).

What does “deny[ing] incarceration” mean?

Simply: You don’t want to go to jail.

For the sake of argument…
I’m just saying that if the affirmation or denial of something is involuntary, then it’s meaningless, because it escapes intention.

I see. So this was all for the sake of argument…

Knox never claimed that denying one thing necessarily affirmed another thing in general. So you’ve been attacking a straw man all along.

Yes… my mistake.

Well, to continue with the topic, I must ask…

How has embracing these facts you’ve newly learned effect your perception on life in general?

if one has no knowledge (like an infant) of existence, it doesn’t mean he will experience some dreaded feeling of isolation and loneliness. But one can experience being isolated from something precisely because he has much knowledge of existence.

Perhaps the isolation comes from placing too much meaning on it?

… or placing too much significance on how to exist.

Exactly. If you spend your entire life searching for meaning, then you never get to live. So basically, searching for meaning in life will render your life meaningless in the end, because your life was spent desperately searching for a meaning.

Furthermore, once a person realizes that life is meaningless, that person can start living life instead of analyzing it, and will therefore achieve a higher sense of freedom.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

~JEFf

Allow me to delicately insert here that there is the physical/biological life of the body where one ironically experiences the actual physical sensations, feelings, pains, discomforts when interfered with by certain thoughts. Thoughts having to do with attempts to find meaning in living relationships with the world and others.

I would say the body with its autonomously intelligent ‘life,’ in an undisturbed (psychologically) natural, peaceful, healthy condition possesses a ‘meaning’ that is already functioning intrinsically. The meaning is already operating there. Superimposing a ‘meaning’ over that is the beginning of self deception, hence, freedom is necessary.

We have been for centuries using some instrument, that is, thinking or mind, or whatever you want to call it, to free ourselves from the whole of what you call the ‘I’ or the ‘self’, and all kinds of things. That is what the whole quest of spirit is all about. But once it dawns on you that there is nothing to be free from, then these questions don’t arise at all. How that dawned on me, I have no way of finding out for myself.

Can you please elaborate on this interference and what you mean by it?

So would that mean that, by attributing complex meanings to life (that are, in reality, mundane everyday occurrences), you are decieving yourself and discarding your freedom? If so, then I will actively agree with you. If not, please explain further, if you don’t mind.

Personally, I believe that bestowing “meaning” upon relationships with others, for example, is selfish… and this is because there have been billions of human interactions and relationships in humankind thus far. Actually, if a person stops granting meaning to things that are commonplace, then that person will begin losing his/her selfishness, and will become much more content with his/her life.

If you have any objections, elaborations, or additions to make to my opinions, then please do so.

Thank you!

I think we’re both just saying the same thing on this matter.

“If you place too much meaning on things, then you can never truly be at peace.”

Would I be correct to state that?

~JKeff

I’ve read the OP, and what I judged as an attempt to find an absolute definition of “nothingness” sorta confused me. I entertain the possibility there is some point I’m missing, but it seems kind of meaningless to me…as I saw it as an attempt to define an abstraction that only carries meaning in that it “refers to” not some “thing” (that is experienced).

I’ll go through different things you’ve said to hopefully find a more specific (a more concrete context of reference/“thingsness” from which to give) meaning to “nothingness”.

Best to start with the title…

Okay…
Nothingness/nothing is almost always (defined as being the) contrary to Being/existence
but you make the argument that “existence coming from nothing and existence always having existed is one and the same thing”,
so I will interpret the (title) words accordingly

so… “nothingness”/“nothing”
–though only having meaning (being dependent on) some being/existence/thing(ness)–
can (under some context by which all title words are defined) be the same thing as (at least “infinite”) existence/being(ness)/thingness.

The contradiction of
“nothing” only having meaning as the lack of (some defining context of) being/existing ("thing"ness)
&
“nothing” = infinite being(ness)/existence/"thing"ness
makes me comfortable assuming that
–due to the symbolic-thinking mind’s (delusional) “ability” to hold two contradictory meanings of a single word
(demonstrating the meaningless/pointlessness of the word, as it was defined in that the corresponding context, or lack thereof, and showing what happens when a mind starts thinking it can experience the world “outside” itself)–
the OP is giving meaning to these words in the context of a mind that cannot experience absolute “nothingess”.
IE The OP isn’t an argument about existence/something, and whether or not “it” has always existed or could have come from “nothing”,
it’s an argument about the only way the human mind can define/think about “nothingness”.

Any/all being(s)/thing(s) that a mind experiences/perceives and apperceives is–as the sub total subjective experience–that mind.

So “being”/existence, as an absolute, base/fundamental definition
…lacking any specific “thing(s)” that–by being deemed as existing or not existing–determine whether or not some specific kind of “being” exists (for example: “What’s wrong?” “Nothing”, or “What do you know about Francis Drake?” “Nothing”)…
is pretty much grounded on/based on/dependent on, and only has meaning from–and so fundamentally is–the mind/subjective experience.
And so “infinity”, in this case, refers to the mind’s sense of an unknown future; the mind is not aware of all the causes, and all the resulting effects, so the (particular) being/existence of the future cannot be determined.
Thus, the “future” (which at that moment, does not exist) is infinite when it comes to its possible being(ness);
but, the (not existing) unknown “future” is [i]the /i being–in/of/the mind that is/is experiencing it (as a concept).

So, because

1. “Existence”/“Being” = the mind/subjective experience
2. “Nothing”(ness) = unknown (unsympathetic/unrelateable) being/existence
3. unknown being/existence = infinity
4. “Nothing”(ness) = infinity
5. "“Nothing”(ness) = Existence/being IF “existence” is deeming (some particular being/existence) unknown.

If you think the latter is what I’m saying, you have not understood.

We could symbolise “existence coming from nothing” as follows:

nothing —> existence

But as nothing is simply that, nothing, we can erase it:

existence

So existence coming from nothing and existence simply always having existed is one and the same thing. “Nothing” is here indeed defined as the contrary to existence (no thing, no existent, no being).

The human mind cannot grasp “infinity”, either. The OP is simply an application of logic to the concept of “nothing(ness)”.

In this thread, infinity just means the absence (in-) of a boundary (finis) of nothingness on any side, in any dimension, of existence. It means existence is enclosed solely by itself.

[/quote]