'Nothing'

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I have never been able to grasp the concept of ‘nothing.’ I used to worry about it as a teenager sometimes. I have read numerous articles by highly educated people who supposedly know what ‘nothing’ is, or isn’t. LOL

My mind simply refuses to grasp the meaning of absolutely ‘nothing.’

Whatever it is between the Earth and the Moon, which most people consider ‘nothing,’ I believe to be 'something. The space time continuum which Einstein made pretty clear to some people, is pretty clear to me except I cannot accept nothing as ‘nothing.’ Outside the space time continuum, ‘nothing’ should be even less than the ‘nothing’ inside the universe. I am in a quandary though, because 'nothing can ever be less than nothing.

As a matter of fact, it is the accepted theory that nothing can exist beyond the space time continuum. However, according to what I believe, that is where God dwells. He is also everywhere else of course, existing also outside the limits of time. A timeless being, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of time as related to our universe. Also though, without beginning and without end, unrelated to the universe, as we know it. Since God exists outside of the space time continuum, then that sort of ‘nothing’ would still be ‘something.’

Every damn physicist, scientist, astronomer, and philosopher, however inept, seems to be able to grasp the concept of ‘nothing,’ whereas I am utterly unable to do so. I sure wish someone would explain it to me, in a way that perhaps even I might understand it.

2

You need pharmological help for immediate insight.

This is the big secret of scientific thinkers.
You didn’t hear it here…

3

i would venture out to say that many of todays philosophers are also materialists, nothing exists outside materialism. so nothing would then be nothing… or no material.

I personally haven’t given it much thought. Nothing may or may not exist. Maybe an enlightened astronomer or chemist could answer this better than us. But remember, humans have small brains compared to the universe, and we use even a smaller amount of our brains to think, so uncertainty is a human trait.

4

Do you know, I agree with you 100% I too have never been able to grasp nothing-ness - it makes no sense.

I’ve never found an explanation that I could bond with, so to speak. There’s always something … the universe has to be expanding into something … and there couldn’t have simply been nothing before the big bang. Something had to exist before “our” arrival (be that our universe or our big bang) in order for us to unravel into it. Otherwise, there would simply be no place for us to be in.

And thats where I can wrestle with “god” and find some rationale. At the end of our universe, when we’re unravelling into something … then there has to be something or someone at the end of all that … otherwise, if its infinite (and thats something else I struggle with … infinity) then its nothing … and then my dichotomy begins again … :unamused:

5

well, I was raised mormon, and I was taught that Jesus was created by his father, and that god also has a father, and so forth etc etc. but it gives no beginning point like greek creation stories, nor does it give absolute mysticism like mainstream judaism religions which stresses god just always was and is.

Some questions seem to be out of our scope. Speculation is the answer for somethings, and keeping an open mind I guess. Tough questions, maybe it is more in the vain of poetry than science to deal with.

6

try this distinction between " nothing" and “absolute nothing”

Nothing is a practical application;

for example nothing in my bank account, no money.

where as " absolute nothing"

means that it has no dimension( no possibility to manifest) no space , a place to manifest and no movement(or time) no possibility to change, into something.

7

I have nothing to offer.

8

No one can truly grasp that which we conceptualize as “nothing”. Nor it’s companion, infinity.

“Nothing” is a word we use to describe a concept that we can’t visualize, and as 95% of a human’s perception is visual, the concept is one that we will never be able to truly understand. You are not alone.

9

=D>

Zero (0). This is how I reconcile with ‘nothing’. What does the number 0 mean? What does it represent? Nothing. Zero holds no substance. It’s a place holder…

10

so “nothing” in the fridge is hard to visualize? or conceptualize?

hmm… why?

“nothing” or zero(0) , is actually, originally , a mathematical concept from Sukrit accounting.

so easily understood.

either you have it or you don’t.

if you don’t have any money in your account. that does not imply that money does not exist, just that you have none of it or nothing in your account.

11

An inability to visualize nothing seems to me to stem from a lack of imagination. What’s so hard about it? A unicorn doesn’t exist, right? But you could imagine what a unicorn would look like by trying to hold its characteristics in mind. It looks like a horse with a pointy horn sticking out of its forehead.

Nothing, as a concept, seems to me even easier than a unicorn. It doesn’t have fur, or hooves with little chips taken out from sharp gravel. It doesn’t smell vaguely like a barn and it doesn’t make a whinnying sound. It has no extension, no characteristics at all, and it would seem to me that something with no characteristics to envision would make it simpler than something as complex and manifold as a horse with a horn in its head. Nothing just sits there. It doesn’t do anything.

Ask yourself these two questions:

  1. What does it look like?
  2. What does it do?

And once you’ve gotten to the point that you can’t answer these things anymore, you’ve got it! If you’ve never been able to get that far, try to exhaust the possibilities.

Also, if I may nitpick, this statement gets under my skin:

“As a matter of fact, it is the accepted theory that nothing can exist beyond the space time continuum. However, according to what I believe, that is where God dwells.”

It’s not the God talk - I’d never fault anyone for wanting God around, and heck, I’m even undecided about it. It’s the “according to what I believe part.” I hear that all over this forum. It’s not conducive to real philosophy, which can only begin, when you get right down to it, when you proceed from a place of doubt, when you say, “Hey, you know what? I’m not sure what to believe. I may even be - gasp - totally, completely, and utterly wrong.” Philosophy doesn’t work when you come to the table with hardened beliefs. Try, instead, to ask yourself WHY you believe, and how things could be otherwise. That path is far more fruitful. Even Kant had to awaken from “dogmatic slumbers.”

12

what is “real” philosophy? Does it exist, by whose standards.

We all go to forums with our own mental paradigm, or else we would be uncapable of discoursing. Belief in God or not is just one other variable. Nothing more.

13

I see "nothing " as the absence of “time.” Existence isn’t in three dimensional space but begins at the fourth dimension or “time” defined as the “repetition of a moment.” Three dimensional space can sensed by us since we exist in time and the additional dimension of eternity.

We exist in time so I don’t see how we could appreciate non existence or God as the non existant state of conscious pure potential or no-thing in contrast to nothing which is the absence of potential or time.

14

First off: I’m not just saying things to provoke. I respect all opinions, especially those that have to do with something so private as religious views. What I’m saying is that the rigid belief in things, and using those rigid beliefs as a starting point, can be harmful and misleading to the student of thought.

I agree that we all have our own mental paradigms - that’s what makes people so interesting. But the real business of philosophy is understanding that paradigm, shifting it when needed, so that a person grows and acquires true understanding.

The belief in God is a variable. I agree with that too. But sticking fast to variables, which by their nature should be allowed the chance to vary, imposes on the mind restrictions that can limit the way to a deeper understanding.

It’s better to start from a place where you want to believe something, rather than to use philosophy to cloak your personal need for self-satisfaction. We don’t learn by allowing our preconceptions to ossify; we learn by allowing them to slip through our fingers if they must. Our thoughts need permission to strike out into new territory. Binding them in belief should come at the end of investigation, if at all.

I’m not saying I’ve got all the answers, but it seems like a better way to proceed. I’m interested in hearing other opinions on the matter.

15

your wrong

“nothing” is not the absence of time but the absence of a possession of a thing.

and the essence of time is movement . without the movement of energy/matter there is no time.

time is not a true dimension. it relies on the existence of energy/matter and their movement. in the first place.

time is a measurement of movement.

16

There is a real life example that can make you see a glimpse of what nothing is.

That is loss of all hope for love and to be completely alone, that is as close to seeing nothing in this body as you will ever get. Believe me, when you are without hope of any sentient relation, EVER!, you don’t care at all for your surroundings as you will find they mean nothing in this vacuum. This should tell you something about the difference in awareness of man compared to animals, they can be alone, we cannot.

17

Hi North

It really is quite interesting. You are claiming that it is movement that creates time and I am asserting that it is time, defined as the repetitiion of a moment, that allows for existence in which movement occurs.

From this point of view, a moment in time is the fourth dimension that is in a state of repetition allowing us to perceive it as existence. Eternity or the fifth dimension creates a line of repeating moments in time. This is why it has been said in the past that a man’s life exists in eternity.

Our basic difference as I see it is in our definitions of time. You see time as a measure of relationships and I see it as the repetition of a moment that taken together with an infinity of other such repeating moments allows for the functioning of existence and an additional linear way for us, restricted to three dimensional perception, to conceive of time.

18

I’ve had many casual conversations about this topic, and I am in favor of the distinction between nothing (the word in its practical use) and the abstract concept of absolute nothingness. I have always thought that it is impossible to conceptualize absolute nothingness because the mind must necessarily conceptualize something. Even if absolute nothingness actually exists I doubt whether we would be aware of it. I think it would be something like gravity, as in it would have an affect on the universe but it would not be perceived by the senses.

To me conceptualizing absolute nothingness is like visualizing a new color (not a mix of the colors we can already see).

those be my thoughts : )

19

what do you mean by “time is a repetition of a moment”?

give an example of what you mean.

20

actually you can not conceptualize " absolute nothing" since it is the inverse of the qualities that make up substance or matter.

" absolute nothing " is just that " absolute nothing" there is no variation on the theme. because variation is simply not possible. at any time, for infinity.