P1 - Nothing exists;
P2 - Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
P3 - Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.
I read a paper once about two kinds of knowledge. I think that it had something to do with the fact that some types of knowledge can be had only by direct acquaintance with a thing, and that other kinds could be had by description, or kind of like second hand knowledge.
I think that inevitably, even the kind of things that can only be known by direct acquaintance are still able to be formalized in descriptive systems like certain kinds of math and logic.
The attempt to solve the problem here has to do alot with language and being “maximally specific”. As in, while you may not be able to know 100% of the properties of certain things, (knowledge by acquaintance things), you can know enough about how they differ from other things to where you can narrow the category that you’re describing all the way down to just 1 thing, (the thing you’re acquainted with).
it’s definitely a problem of language - in one sense nothing exists is true and in another sense it’s false - we simply aren’t linguistically clear on the nature of the distinction between the senses, and can’t for the life of us determine the standards we set for things to be considered “true”. There are so many semantic subtleties to consider, nothing is such an ambiguous word - those who say we usually know specifically what we mean when we talk about “nothing” are kidding themselves
consider the question:
Can one know nothing about something?
In certain senses, that’s a meaningful question, even though it is inherently contradictory, in other senses it’s not. And so also in some senses the answer to it will be true AND false at the same time. The persistent semantic ambiguity of the linguistic distinctions between those senses is what fucks up our attempts to give questions like “does nothing exist?” a definitive yes or no answer.
Nice comments!
If all things do not exist, which is a clearer formulation of what you are saying, then all things can do nothing at all.
Language is only a tool, so you need to show of what use a claim like “nothing exists” could be. You should also be able to explain what your motive in saying this is, what you hope to achieve by making this communication to us. If you can’t explain these things satisfactorily to us, then you are wasting our time - and possibly your own.
But “all things do not exist” appears nonsensical because : there are no things to talk about. If there are things, then they exist. So: pure nonsense.
P2 and P3 are more acceptable. Depends how exacting we are when we say “know”. OK, theoretically knowledge is never certain (real knowledge), but we have to be practical, and it makes more sense to use “know” in a less demanding fashion. We want to “know” how to get to Johannesburg, so we draw a map. We don’t need to have a totally accurate map, as long as it is near enough for practical purposes. Whenever we consider human activities such as existing and knowing, we had better ask ourselves what purpose these activities are serving, if we hope to understand them.
And we don’t need to worry about the fact that we might be dreaming before we set out on our journey.
I don’t think the way to good philosophy is via mental gymnastics and hair-splitting.
If we don’t know what we want, no philosophy can tell us. Or help us. So what do we want philosophy for? in my opinion, the only use for it is to debunk existing false philosophies. And replace them with a perfect vacuum, if that could be possible. As Nietzsche would say, “Throw off the burden! Become a child!”
Enjoying the comments…
playing here as I’ve made it abundantly clear in my other posts what I really believe.
Can anyone remember what it was like as a brainless sperm? Brain = consciousness = perception of energy and its properties = perception of existence. The only thing that exists is energy. Everything else is just a mosaic of complexities.
Hey…I said that first! LOL
Nonsense.
Okay…confession time…
after all the challenges I received about my posts on existence
and my premises, particularly all the solipsism comments, I decided
to post the original argument behind the theory proposed by the Greek
presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is credited by the Romans
with starting this whole theory…
Interesting…got cha!
Nothing and something exist.
Both, in own pure form, are absolute.
Countless combinations of two make countless forms of existence, relativity.
Computer analogy: nothing = 0, something = 1, patterns of 0 and 1 create everything in computers (data, music, pictures, video, etc.).
The misunderstanding as I experience it is people equate ‘things’ and ‘non-things’ with ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’
and so come up with all this foolish talk about non-existence being real/existing etc.
Something like that seems to be the case.
Or there are a bunch of college freshman about who have read the first chapter of one of their philo prof’s self-written textbooks (first printing: 250 copies) and think that they know something.
Or both.
Pray tell, what are some “non-things” that exist? 0? 0 exists by virtue of it being a symbol. 0 exists by virtue of the notion of non-existence. But 0 per se is non-existent, without any constituents and qualities. Without existence, we won’t be able to compare and conceive the notion of non-existence. Vice versa. To argue your point based on mere nominalism and a “computer analogy” betrays an amateurish void of rigour. It’s analogous to what a child once told me. About how his teacher taught him that if 3 boys were to share 2 apples evenly, then the number of boys that will receive 1 apple is 1.5. Boffins 
And is it impossible for a bunch of college freshmen with little exposure to philosophical dogma to be capable of having a sound epistemology? I’ve heard people dismiss “white van men” in a similar fashion. That they are somehow inferior in the social hierarchy. And then one such driver goes on to win 56 million pounds on the lottery, without hard work nor intelligence. Moral of the story? If you think you understand epistemology, then you don’t understand epistemology.
I’m confused as to your analogy. Could you explain?
In the UK, dear boy, money does not buy one a place in the social hierarchy. Only a white van man would presume otherwise.
Contrary to what some boffins think, there is no such thing as 1.5 boys in reality. But what do I know? They are the ones with the algorithms.
Try telling that to British kids, most of whom aspire to be rich footballers and rich celebrities.
OR -
There are no non-things that exist. You may have misunderstood my post.
And…almost everyone has an epistemology. It took me years to get rid of mine.
You talking to some other people or to me?
I know that non-things don’t mean non-existing, like, awareness is not a thing, yet is existing pretty well, and perhaps, it’s the ONLY thing there IS.
“Nothing exists” is a funny term, which to me means, “something which is NOT a thing exists”, and thus, is very close to what I stated, that only awareness exists (which is not a thing, thus nothing exists).
No analogy can truly present what I intended, but you could use your imagination and creativity to come close to the point I was making, if you’d chose to focus on that instead on how bad the mentioned analogy is.
The image I wanted to portray is quite simple: that creation of whole relativity (which happen to be us and everything in our Universe) come out of two absolute “elements”.
Since existence must last since ever, or we would never exist (we cannot arise into existence out of absolute nothingness), then that which exists since ever is absolute, and since it’s absolute per-se and we are not, it means relativity had to be born somehow, and the only way I see is that the existing absoluteness “combined” with absolute void gave birth to relative existence (us & else).