Absolute nothing is defined as the absence of everything — no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no laws, no properties, no mathematics
If absolute nothing has no properties, it cannot have limitations — because limitations are themselves properties.
If it has no limitations, then it must allow all possibilities — because there is nothing to forbid them.
If all possibilities are allowed, then the existence of something is one of those possibilities.
In the absence of time, there is no “waiting” for something to arise — possibility and actuality collapse into the same state.
Therefore, absolute nothing would instantly “contain” (or “become”) something.Conclusion
Absolute nothing is logically impossible, because it inherently generates something.
Existence is necessary, not contingent. There is always something rather than nothing, because “nothing” cannot be sustained even conceptually.Implications
This reframes the cosmological argument: the “first cause” is not a conscious agent but the logical impossibility of non-being.
“You’re giving nothing the property of ‘allowing possibilities.’”
Response: No — “allowing” is not a property here. It’s just the absence of prohibition. Zero rules = zero blocks.
“If nothing has potential, it’s already something.”
Response: Not “potential” in Aristotle’s sense — no stored energy, no substance. Just the fact that nothing forbids something from being.
A possibility, in its most basic form, is not a “thing” with properties — it’s just the logical statement that X is not ruled out. This does not require that X also carry a set of intrinsic restrictions.
I didnt know horror vaculi by name but after looking it up i remembered what it was, while similar i felt unsatisfied with Aristotle’s answer. This is a logical why that feels more intuitive to me, but im biased so…
.
Saying that there is something instead of nothing is kinda moot.. due to the very fact that there is something, so not a verifiable scientific notion, but an opinion.
No its not verifiable but it eases my mind as a possible answer to a why not that has plagued me for a very long time. Ive run it past some non philosophers who seemed to also understand it making it an intuitive argument for the question heidegger said was the fundemental question of metaphysics. It also breaths magic into the world for me. Becuase if nothing is impossible what is possible?
Absolute nothingness is not impossible, just impossible to grasp as a concept, due to context = image. The only image we can think of in terms of nothingness is a nothing that is still something and not actually nothing, because it can be thought of, it is actually an incomprehensible thing and if you catch yourself thinking of it, well the realization that it can’t be comprehended will easily show that that is not true nothing but a something wearing a piece of nothing or ‘appearing as it’.
it is like infinite, the opposite of it, we can’t grasp infinite either due to the nature of how it functions and so the same goes for true nothingness.
I don’t think there are rules in what there can, has or will be. And if there are, they are very basic laws.
It goes both ways, if everything and anything is possible, then that also means absolute nothingness is also one of those but right now, we’re having proven that there is something by our own experience of it.
It can’t appear as anything, otherwise it becomes what it isn’t and if it isn’t, then you aren’t looking at it.. which is why it is not able to be looked at or viewed. It’s a paradoxical thing, similar to infinity.
Nothing is zero. Anything multiplied by zero is zero. The word “no limits” does not suddenly cause the word “nothing” to have material properties.
For example, matter is e=mc^2. Matter is energy. So if you have 0 energy then you cannot have matter. Nothingness cannot spontaneously divide into matter and anti-matter components. If you add up matter and anti-matter, you don’t get 0 energy.
“Nothing” is form without content. There is form, but no substance. Although. “Nothing” is form as the opposite of “Everything”. And most importantly. If “Everything” is comprehended through three forms (in the totality of their application) matter, space and time. So, these forms must be “present” in “Nothing”. The word “present” is taken in quotation marks. After all, we have already set the condition that there is no content in the form of “Nothing”. This imaginary paradox is easily resolved. The content of “Nothing” is the same matter, space and time, but compressed into a monolith, without separation. That is, there is only one form, and therefore there is no content - there is simply nothing to define it. And conclusion: You do not have what I have written, and until you memorize it, you will remain stupid.
I was trying to find nothing (Kant’s… don’t worry, I found it, CPR A292/B348) and something popped out:
“If the whole is the singular ‘condition for the possibility’ of the particular singularity – then, it is in every possible particularity AND a particular miracle ain’t no big thing to it.”
Sorry, Hume. The supernatural is perfectly natural.
No they are not. It is an impossibility to conceptualize nothing because then it is no longer “nothing” it is something, isn’t it. That isn’t nothingness. That’s falling for the illusion that experience ceases after death, things still happen, regardless of living.
The “I” ceases and /its/ unique experience stops, but the whole of experience does not. Experience does not need an observer for it to still happen.
How to prove that? We’re here aren’t we? Things happened over time that brought us about, and conscious being was not always a thing.
