Does Nothing exist?

Does Nothing exist?

The answer to this question is: “Yes it exists”. How?! That’s the way:

Nothing is the way of expression and relation about a particular question to a particular subject. What does this mean?

Picture this: I ask a friend “Can you please go to the next room and see if there is any chair in there?” The friend goes there and look “No, nothing”, he says. I ask him again “Do you see a table there?” He looks and say “Yes it is”.

When you start a conversation with someone and you two start talking about different aspects, one of you claim something about that case and another one says “No it has NOTHING to do with THAT”. So what is this Nothing all about?! That Nothing is the way the person sees the thing on his/her particular view of the relations about the particular cases. Therefore the same Nothing that you started the Thread with, is YOUR Nothing. Another proof to its existence.

I feel the only question we can ask is: What do we mean when we say “nothingness”

This question I feel has been answered successfully by many of the contributors to this thread, however I would like to add the following sentance: There literally isn’t nothing out there.

When said in this way the notion seems to take on new significance for me.

Nothingness is absence of anythingness.

Nothing might exist in some regions, why not?

IMO, nothingness and somethingness are the two most fundamental building blocks of countless kinds of existence (aka ultimate Yin-Yang), which are between those (only) two types of absolutes - one being full existence and the other being full nonexistence.

A new kind of existence thus happens when this nothingness and somethingness mix, and since there are countless of ways for nothingness and somethingness to mix there are, as said, countless types of existence. Where our known Universe is just one of them.

So, yes, nothingness exists as nonexistence. Nonsense? Well, if it exists it cannot be nonsense or it wouldn’t exist, so, it must be only sense :wink:

What if for instance the concept of nothing is merely a trick of the mind, not related to reality all all. because we have a part of our brain which has to differenciate between one and the other (mostly I figure for the simple use of, “I can eat this”, “I can’t eat this”) we, in connection with other mental apperatus, take that program to a logical conclusion. Not that this process has any bearing on reality.

So, let’s say the concept of nothing is something which we ascribe to things. I mean it seems to we that only though a process of mental though can we come up with opposites. I have a hard time thinking of anything tangible which could be described as having an opposite, except as not (in which it never happened in the first place, did it)

i think you should takes other dimensions into account. i believe the 3rd dimension to be infinite to us in the same way a floating sphere would be infinite to a 2d man (notice how the 2d man is really living in 3d, he just cant perceive it)

so basically i think “nothing” may still be something in another dimension. i think “dimensionless” really just means out of the 3rd dimension and into one we cant perceive.

i don’t think “nothing” can exist. even your thoughts have a biological correlation

It’s hard to live with contradiction and paradox. One you try to grasp onto something completely, something else tends to pop out from the fist you are using to squeeze it. There is a limit to how far one can squeeze. Once that limit is reached, all you are doing by continuing to squeeze is creating callouses.

i read some of your essay but i just dont understand why you would make such a broad statement such as this…

nothing is the only true universal constant? what of love? and even forgetting about love …how is this quoted statement supported within your essay?

Nothing seems to be something that many are afraid of.

I found this forum searching for an answer to this question, and this question might turn out to be one of the most important questions ever asked.

At least this question is very important to me because I only recently became aware that god is not a concept that can in any way help to stop thinking about the mystery of the origin of existence.

If god created the universe, who created god? God is a useless concept in answering the question of the origin of anything. God is a useless brainfuck.

I came to the question of nothing when I tried to imagine what was before the big bang.

A “nothingness” before the big bang would mean not only no matter or energy, but also no space and no time, and not even emptiness or vacuum because these concepts would require space.

However, if “nothing” can not exist, you don’t need creation. The universe simply exists because there is no alternative. We could coin it the TINA-principle of existence, and do not need a creator or creation. For me, this would be a very satisfying answer to stop thinking about why the universe exists, much more satisfying than convincing myself that such a complex entity like a personal god came into existence for no reason.

You are of course still free to use this TINA-Principle to explain the existence of god, but you can as well cut this middlemen out.

What also supports the idea that “nothing” is impossible is that logic and mathematical truth exist outside time, matter and space. For example there can not be a universe with different prime numbers.

Maybe what some people call God is what other people call math or logic.

So far there seems to be consensus here that “nothing” does not exist in our universe, it is just an abstract concept in our mind, required to define existence. However, nothing of something is something that can exist. Nothing of anything does not seem to exist. Therefore something must exist.

I am starting to love this idea.

Pavel

We are all in the constant flux of nothing and of something

Does Nothing exist?

I am a fragment of (Nothing) as are You…The Nothingness which all things exist within. Therefore (Nothing) does exists, for I AM. All that is considered as a (Thing) exist only because it exists within that which we Are. Things exist only within the consciousness of Nothingness. Therefore, Things do not actually exist outside of the ability to consider them. Nothing does exist, whereas Things are but a manifestation of what we believe exists. Things are merely a projection whose purpose is only to reflect the Truth that We Are. Things are symbolic, not a reality but reflecting that which IS. Consider all Things so to reveal No Thing.
…love iamuurme…

Just a thought…

Probably the wrong place to look for an answer…

By the way, when I said that his forum is not the best place to find your answer, I didn’t mean to disparage this forum.

What I meant was that these kinds of answers, I think, need to be discovered in a more ‘personal’ place.

I’ve thought about this question extensively and concluded that the way
to think about this is to include the idea of infinity in the definition.
Mathematically, the definition of nothing (0) can be defined as either the
difference of two exactly equal things (hard to prove and only
mathematically significant) or something(x) divided by infinity (existence unknown).

It seems to me that for nothing to exist then infinity must also exist,
otherwise, our universe is finite and the ‘nothing’ is outside of it.

It would seem that these concepts really are the Yin and the Yang,
but which one ?

existence is only infinite as far as we know…this does not mean that it is actually infinite- just infinite as far as we know…if you are saying that existence and nothing are opposites then that is false as well…the opposite of existence would be still existence…nothing is not the opposite of existence- it is simply nothing- it is that which allows existence to be or vice versa- existence is that which allows nothing to be

“something” is existence…being divided by “existence unknown”??? …if it is existence that is unknown are you saying that it can be known- that it can be discovered?- “unknown” simply means that it is not known- it does not mean that it is not capable of being known- simply that it is unknown at this point in time…if that were the case you would only know of this unknown existence because of existence itself correct? but if it is unknown then how could you say that it is infinite? in fact it would only be infinite as far as you know- just because one does not reach a limit does not mean there is not a limit to be reached.

theoretically we could go out into space and travel for billions of years and simply end up right back where we started…if we go forward- and keep going straight and then eventually we see that as we are going straight we are approaching our original starting point from behind- does this mean that we went straight and then came from behind? what if we keep going straight until we eventually approach our starting point but it appears that it is in the opposite direction of that which we came in- does this mean that we somehow started in one direction but somehow went in the opposite direction without feeling any change? -no it does not- existence itself can allow for change and we could never know it…if we live in a ball and theres only two points on opposite sides of the ball (nothing else for reference)- we can start at one point and travel to the other point a finite number of ways (pay attention)- but what if the ball itself changed based on our thought…if this were possible then we could theoretically travel in a straight line and existence itself could fold over on itself to bring you back to your original starting point without ever showing you a curve or limit- in fact you will have traveled in a conceptual straight line the entire time because your conceptualization from existence was afforded 3 dimensions of mobility the entire time- this would create the illussion that nothing has changed around you and that you have been traveling in a straight line the entire time- you would never be able to see the limits of that which encompases you because it will adapt to your consciousness…but now you are coming back to your original starting point and you are beginning to become confused. you begin to think that you are encompassed by a circle because you’ve now ended up at the same starting point…you come up with an idea…you draw a starting point- you take a red dot and put it directly on one side of the line- you take a blue dot and put it directly on the opposite side of the line- to conclude that you exist in an “unchanging” circle- and to discover the limits of this circle you begin this experiment. you figure that if you start out in the direction of the blue dot and you truly are encompassed by a circle then traveling in a straight line will mean you will return to your starting point in the direction of the red dot…but what if on your return you see that this time you have returned in the direction of the blue dot from which you came instead of the red dot on the opposite side of the starting point line???

you will say to yourself hey whats going on??? how did i change directions? i must have went in a circle and not realized it…you decide to place more red dots and blue dots…you use them as markers- these markers will tell you whats really going on. so you proceed to place blue dots in a straight path in the direction of the original blue dot. you go for about a million miles of laying down your blue markers in a straight line and then recede back along the blue dots back to the starting point. you then go in the direction of the original red dot and start laying down your red markers in a straight path…you figure now that as you keep going in this straight line that you will eventually bump into the blue dots unless something truly fishy is happening…well what do you know- sooner or later you can see the beginning of the blue path you created…after this you conclude that you do live in a circle and everything is ok…the one time that you came back in the opposite direction was simply a result of you yourself going in a circle and not realizing it… (you will later on figure out the limits of this circle so you can better understand your circumstances- but before you do so you decide to play around a little).

so now that your experiment is concluded you go and collect all the red and blue dots so that all that remains are only the two original dots- one on each side of the starting point- the red dot on one side and the blue dot on the other…as you proceed to perfect your “going in a straight path” techniques you attempt to go straight forward from the direction of the red dot until you come back through the blue dot on the other side- it works…you think to yourself- my oh my- havent i done such a great job in traveling at a straight path and understanding the circle that i live in…you decide to go in a straight path again… you go from the direction of the red dot again to reach the blue but this time as you are traveling you reach the red dot that you came from instead of the blue dot!!! how is this possible- have i mistakenly gone in a circle again even though i have perfected my straight path techniques??..you decide to try it again numerous times from the SAME DIRECTION- sooner or later you realize that it is based on your will- you decide to will the dot on the other side to either be the red one or the blue one- you’re right for a few times- but then it doesnt work- you begin to realize that it has been purely random this entire time- sometimes you will it to be red and it is so and sometimes you will it to be red and it is not so- it seems whether you come from the same path or the opposite when traveling in your straight line that it will be purely random…you do not accept this random garbage- you can not handle this- (you are in fact a man that needs to control his world) you suddenly realize that when the markers were present there was no randomness…you begin to put markers all over the place - ALL OVER THE PLACE…now there is no more randomness and when you travel in a straight line it will always get you to where you want to go…that man died and he forgot to tell his children that the markers create the rules…he realized long ago that when he first willed that path to lead to the blue dot that it was certainly blue and it was the most blue he had ever seen before. he remembered that when he willed it the second time to be red that it was the most red he had ever seen it to be before. when he willed it the third time to be red and it instead was blue, he became confused- so confused that he had not realized that it was not as blue as before- he was far too distraught by the event of randomness to realize this. he created a world of markers and had children within this world of markers…many lived and were happy and one day his baby boy was come down with great illness…father worried and willed many a night for his baby boy to regain health but it was the posture of the baby boy’s lungs that needed rest to heal the infection…one night father came into the room and saw his baby boy sleeping…something was odd- he seemed so happy- father knew a familiar feeling was on the tip of his tongue…it seemed the fathers will came true…he knew then that it was his fault randomness took over will so very long ago before he placed the markers throughout the world-but this was a distant dream and so his feeling of enlightenment was more of deja vu rather than a direct recollection, nevertheless he looked down at his baby boy that lay in the cradle wrapped in the most luxurious of cloths and noticed that he was not wrapped tightly as he left him earlier- he noticed the blankets were rather loose at the edges and it appeared that the baby was slightly elevated…the father slowly placed his hands to feel what it was that was cushioning his baby boy from underneath and to his fearful shock he noticed that there was nothing there but rather a warm air…the father realized that his baby boy was floating about half an inch up- not very noticeable but astonishing to say the least…and not only that, the baby was purely happy- his face so angelic and he had not appeared this way since before he came down with the illness.it appeared the baby boy was being rejuvenated by will of the father…sudddenly he felt his internal security alarm going off- just as when he had first found out centuries and centuries ago that randomness was more powerful than will- he needed to do something- he did not want to be insane- he would call for his wife quietly- he would tell her to come and see and if she saw what he saw then he would know for sure that he was not insane and his baby boy had been called upon for his father’s will. as he fetched his wife upon their return to the baby’s room their was a horrid sound- a sound all too familiar since the baby boy became ill. it was the sound of the baby boy’s cry- he was crying again he was no longer floating in his sleep happy and peaceful- no this time he was crying pouring shedding heaps of tears and sweat…the baby boy died that night- father went on and centuries later long after his wife died and he had many more children he came still centuries more until one day he was at his near and he saw all the markers become bright with color so bright that he could remember this feeling taking over him that he once had felt so very long ago when he willed his first markers to be red or blue and had also felt right before his baby boy died… he knew with all his heart that he could erase all the markers in the entire world at once at that very moment with merely his will- he knew this with all his heart because he saw that he did not want to test it- this is how he knew and therefore he left it. he died right then and forgot to tell his children that the markers create the rules…yes its true- some say he forgot to- but some,…some say he chose not to.

insanity is not believing

hth
God bless

A “thing” is a concept of a static Form invented by humans and projected upon change in order to compare differing perceptions of that change.

Nowhere is anything fixed as all is mutable. The present is an ongoing manifestation of the past, projecting into the future.

“Something” is a relative term refering to an object of perception within this process. Humans construct artificial boundaries within the flow and refer to what occupies these artificial boundaries as a “thing”, separate and distinct from what is around it, and usually assumed to be unchanging.

“Nothing” is a relative term which indicates a lack of the indicated premise.

The idea of time is as much a human construct of subjective experience as is the idea of a “thing”. The idea that “things” are invented concepts but that “mutability” is not is a self-contradiction.

The notions of space and time are the basic means by which human self-experience forms, they are the way in which we partition out disparate elements within us and through perception (internal modeling/creative consciousness) distinguish them. When you speak about “all is mutable” this is just as meaningless as saying “all is immutable”.

Do you see how those two statements cannot be separated from one another? That you cannot have your cake and eat it too?

Outside of a human framework of self-experiential, perceptive self-consciousness these notions can and do have no meaning whatsoever. We might as well talk about a whale’s notions of an Pentium Processor, it is equally meaningless.

Again, you subject space (extension, “things”) to time (“flow”). Have you yet grasped that these are inseparable and existentially identical to one another? Constructed forms existing in the human mind alone, conditional means by which the human attempts to grasp and make sense of itself.

The idea of “nothing” is an important one to human thought, as it is a metaphor that may allow access to more subliminal areas of self-reference and perception. By conceiving of the notion of nothing we are calling into mind the relationship between the self-experiencing constructing subjectivity of perception and the inaccessible void that lurks always underneath, behind and through this process.

Man still treats his ideas as concretes and his perceptions as “of the world” “out there” somewhere, separate from himself. This folly allows him to get so confused when dealing with ideas such as “nothing”, as if “nothing” must “exist” somewhere “in reality” somehow - just as this same folly seems to have you confused regarding the concepts of space and time.

Subjecting human constructs and human meaning to “mutability” as if “mutability” were some Truth known via objective proof or some such thing is nonsense. Human constructive consciousness, the “thing” to which you refer, cannot be “projected upon change”, as the “change” itself is equally as much a conditional and invented “thing” as every other thing in the human mind.

While your attempt to objectify time (“mutability” or “flow”) is certainly a step forward from the average mindset of most people, it reveals a mind caught at a certain level, unable to transcend further into full understanding of idealism, in the Shopenhauerian or Upanishadian sense. But even Nietzsche missed this as well, so at least you are in good company. :smiley:

Does everything exist?

Then there’s your answer.

Nothing is the antithesis of everything.

/int Px lim between -infinity + infinity= something as x approaches infinity anything outside of this either does not exist or is something that is conceptual only like God.

Px=Probability of something happening or existing

or

in maths gibberish:

The big E symbol means the sum of

P[E]=probability of something existing

As does the integral sign more or less.

This can be expressed in a 4 co-ordinate system also with t as the imaginary axis.

@Three Times Great:

As always, it is a matter of degree. Truth is a measure of the accuracy of a premise when compared to the standard, reality.

That perception is imperfect and incomplete merely dismisses the notions of either absolute; what is relevant is how closely one’s models match what they refer to.

Therefore it is more accurate to posit mutability than it is static states, as one can observe reality, filtered through an imperfect perception, and note that phenomena undergo activity/interaction/change.

You will note that one cannot know Truth, but ones conceptions can be “truer” than anothers.

I do not assert absolutes, I assert imperfect, incomplete interpretations of my perception.

You are projecting.

Indeed, one cannot know Truth, as the precise, perfect knowledge of the object, because one’s knowledge of reality is filtered through the senses and limited by interpretation. It is therefore incomplete, the absolute unreachable.

Yes? And?

One attempts to become more accurate, not perfectly so, which is unattainable. Merely because this perfection is lacking does not make all such conceptualising fruitless or reality unreachable.

Truth is not an absolute; it is a measure, a degree relative to the asserted premise. A concept is extrapolated from perception as a description of the phenomena; this concept is then further tested against perception of the phenomena to measure it’s accuracy.

Once again, the concept cannot be perfectly correct as the measuring tool itself is imperfect. Thus the value of any knowledge or concept is in it’s relative accuracy to what it refers to.

Similarly, the value of any observation is in how closely it matches what it perceives.

Not Truth/False; degree.

How magnanimous of you.

When you have got past thinking reality is inaccessible because your perception of it is not perfect, be sure to let me know…