beacuase you would not be concieving “nothing”, if it were “nothing”,
“nothingness” is inconcievable. by something that concieves.
it is “nothing”.
semantics, semantics, semantics [-o<
So you say nothing is inconceivable, but The Stumps said it is conceivable. There is a contradiction… 
Is nothing conceivable or not conceivable? Make up your mind please. 
How can I conceive of nothing? Should I stop thinking and just use my intuition? Is that nothing?
we as the ones who make perspective could “imagine” or concieve a state of “nothing”
what is “nothing” to you?
But this does not make the state of “nothing” a state of reality.
to me nothing would be a big black void, with nothing.
this does not make “nothing” something.
but i have to admit, i like how you word things, its making me work, thank you for your resilance. [-o<
you have a strong will.
No.
You are being dense just to have fun.
Nothing is a relative concept applicable to the context that it is used.
In the conversation of money, nothing refers to an absence of dollars; non-dollars.
In the conversation of existence, nothing refers to an absence of existence; non-existence.
I didn’t say anyone can conceive it.
I said just the opposite in the other thread.
It is an imagined…dear god…sigh…
It is an imagined concept used as a placeholder for lacking some comparative other thing.
We cannot conceive the lack of existence; we can only infer nothing (lack of existence) in imagining.
What the hell is wrong with you? You’ve been posting this on multiple occasions now.
Okay, so as people have voiced in this thread…
1) Nothing DOES NOT EXIST.
2) Nothing cannot be imagined.
3) Nothing cannot be conceived.
So here is my contention: “Nothing DOES EXIST though … as non-existence.”
If non-existence is nothing, then nothing DOES EXIST as 1) non-existence, 2) non-imaginable, and 3) non-conceivable.
But none of those facts imply that nothing DOES NOT EXIST, because if they did imply it, then the statement would turn to contradiction…
“Nothing DOES NOT EXIST though … as non-existence, or non-imaginable, or non-conceivable.” And that is apparently-false.
[b]Thus we can conclude that nothing does in-fact exist by definition!!![/b]
We can imagine the concept of nothing.
Please explain in detail… 
Secondly…
The CONCEPT of nothing EXISTS equally as the concept of NON-EXISTENCE in the conversation of existence.
However, nothing does NOT EXIST as NON-EXISTENCE.
NOTHING [size=125]≠[/size] NON-EXITENCE
The (CONCEPT-for-nothing) = NON-EXISTENCE
Hopefully this will help…hopefully
The script for the above would read:
Nothing is not Something.
Nothing is not Anything.
The concept of Nothing is Non-Existence.
The concept is something.
But Nothing is still not Something.
Nothing is still not Anything.
I’ve said it in the other thread.
We imagined nothing to begin with.
We created the concept to begin with.
Therefore, evidence exists that we can imagine the damn concept of nothing.
And that is all.
I agree with the idea that nothing, by definition, doesn’t exist. It is, after all, the absence of anything. As an analogy, one may think of a vacuum; space is ‘filled’ by this vacuum, but vacuum is only the absence of any material. Therefore, vacuum does not exist as a material ‘filling’ space, but rather as the idea that there is no material filling that space. Vacuum does exist, but not as a material; it exists as the absence of a material.
‘Nothing’ is the absence of anything. All things that fall into the category of ‘anything’ exist. Therefore, ‘nothing’ describes an absence of what exists. If nothing that is described by ‘nothing’ can exist (as nothing is the absence of what exists), then nothing cannot exist.
The reason some may argue is because the word ‘nothing’ exists. The word ‘nothing’ offers an aproximation to the “concept of nothing”; a concept which does not exist, as nothing does not exist. Because this concept doesn’t exist, we cannot imagine it. We therefore get as close as we can, with what we picture when somebody says the word ‘nothing’: some may imagine total darkness. Total darkness, however, is something, as it can be seen in the case of a total blackout with a new moon, for example. As it is something, it is not nothing. In the same way, some may picture a vacuum; there is no material in it, sure, but you can move through a vaccuum, which denotes the existence of space and time, for example. There are many more examples, and I will wager that nobody on Earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) will ever be able to imagine nothing. Because nothing doesn’t exist.
Since people on this thread are much more intelligent than I, would somebody please be so kind to explain any of the following statements???
1) Nothing can be conceived.
2) Nothing can be imagined.
3) Nothing can be idealized.
4) Nothing can be realized.
5) Nothing can be defined.
Until I receive an explanation, I will continue on with my supposedly-false belief: “Nothing DOES EXIST though … as non-existence.”
i think most on this thread would contend that nothing CANNOT be realized and can be conceived of or imagined only asymptotically, partially . . .
it’s a semantic argument
saying non-existence exists is a direct semantic contradiction, but to say that nothing does not exist is to negate it’s usefulness as a concept . . . so nothing exists, just not in an absolute sense - it exists as an absence or lack, which are things by default
you guys are just arguing over the best way to talk about it, but you’re each arguing from within different paradigms - do you want to be strictly logical, or do you want to be strictly practical
Then you are agreeing with these two premises, both of which I would ask of you to definitively-prove to me.
If you cannot reasonably-do so, then I will have no reason to believe your premise or assumption.
Well, the name of this thread is “Literal Nothing” which seems redundant in the first place…
Should it not have been named “_______” instead?
That is a good question. I do not really-care so much for practicality; so I choose ‘logic’ if that is the necessary case.
So am I being ‘literal’ or ‘metaphorical’ then?
you’re being metaphorical - in the strict logical sense, it’s a truism that non-existence does not exist
you’re right, it shouldn’t have been called “Literal Nothing” because the literalness is the source of the confusion - literally, nothing means absolutely nothing, but literally, it also signifies something - a concept - so literal nothing is actually a contradiction, or rather a paradox - which simply indicates that that’s the wrong way to talk about it . . .
I’m not clear on what you want me to prove . . .
The thread is named “Literal” because the other threads were waxing nearly poetic about “Nothing”.
I was stating that I would posit the description of Nothing as the concept literally stands, and not some supposition of Nothing as some other thing.
“Literally…Nothing.”
Literal: in the strict sense.
Or I could have just titled it, “The anal retentive approach to the concept of Nothing because anything else causes false theories about the universe in regards to Nothing.”, but that’s a bit long.
The conversation is all semantics, and as much as people say, “blah, blah, nit-picking”, with concepts like the concept of Nothing, the only thing we really have IS semantics.
Allowing for elbow room, like suggesting that Nothing is something allows for false logic to follow from a concept that wasn’t intended for that use.
The concept is simply the concept of negating everything.
It’s like suggesting that you can get positive out of negative by simply the existence of the negative, when it’s previously established in concept that the negative doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t actually add up.
So, yes, it is semantics…because that’s all the concept is…semantics.
We can’t prove “nothing”.
Okay, I accept that if by logical you mean literally-speaking. But where is it written that metaphors are not logical ~ anywhere?
I’m glad you see it that way because you pointed out the problem of my conceptualization for me, thanks.
I meant to say:
Prove you can imagine nothing (literally/metaphorically-speaking).
Prove you can conceive nothing (literally/metaphorically-speaking).
If you can do either of these activities, then I would enjoy to hear your physical description of the event, since they would contradict all that I know to be true and false.
I see.
Then I believe I have found the ‘literal’ paradox with my counter-statement: Nothing DOES EXIST as non-existence.
Because that statement is literally-true, but perhaps also, not metaphorically-true.
In either case, the literal definition provides a different description.
Hence: Nothing DOES EXIST as non-existence. <> Nothing DOES NOT EXIST. (The two statements are literally-interchangeable.)
I agree.
I believe to argue Nothing other than semantically, you have to shift the argument to metaphysics (and subsequently to theory).
Okay, but I would like to also point out that the concept can be miss-conceptualized no matter how you apply the term “Nothingness”.
“negating everything”
I agree with that description as highly-accurate, in-fact, probably the most accurate a person can get when describing nothing. However, you used the literal description to describe “the act of negation” in a passive sense: negate-ing. According to what I know of linguistics, this would eventually-signify that you are not signifying anything at all by the statement, which may be acceptable, because again, Nothing is a Void-concept. It defies certain linguistic and literal rules on how terms & concepts are applied. In other words, if you were to describe Nothing in the active-sense, “to negate”, then that presupposes an assumption where something can be negated. And that directly-implies that light-energy, or something, or anything, can be ‘created’ or ‘destroyed’ with god-like powers.
At least, that is how I see it…
Nothing only works for me if there is an absence of something specifically metioned.