NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a very basic summary of what I call "The concept of Nothingness and the inability of any living creature to fully comprehend it":

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).
However, in calling it "Nothing" we are violating the fact that it is, by nature of lacking any sort of qualities, undefinable. But even to say it is undefinable is assigning it a quality, which is another violation. This can continue on in what I'm sure is some form of a paradox.
To examine this, it becomes important to find out how we perceive and comprehend Nothing. This, however, becomes impossible as well.
Try to form an image in your head of what Nothing would look/be like. Whether you are aware of it or not, you would probably assign it values of "empty" or "dark", which as I explained earlier is illegal. It is understandable that we assign it such values because humans rely heavily on language.
But what about, say, a shark? It does not have any sort of identifiable language (in the sense that humans do, but this is debatable), but it can obviously assign values or qualities to objects in some way to distinguish one thing from another (such as a type of fish that is good to eat from one that is not).
The shark, too, would run into the same problems as a human. Any attempt to comprehend Nothing would involve assigning it a quality or value, which again is illegal.
Nothing cannot be dark or light, red or green or orange, fat or stupid or 7.5 or bookbag or polynomial or shyly or wow or again? because these are all values or qualities. It cannot even be Nothing. It is merely .
(NOTE: there is supposed to be an empty space between "merely" and the last period...)

I might've overlooked some glaringly obvious logical fallacy... this was a very quick summary I typed up for one of my friends recently.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms?

Try a meditative trance if you want nothingness. Don't use drugs, either. Just let your mind go. Pretty simple, but surprisingly difficult.

Exactly, we cannot imagine Nothing. Just as we cannot see or imagine a colour on a spectrum which is completely unreadable to our eyes. Everything we ever create or do is based of something that existed and was known about prior to..it. So, since we as a human race have never experienced 'nothing' or anything similar to it, we never can.

Have you ever managed it?
If so, kudos to you.
I might try it out myself someday...maybe.

Yeah. I'm getting progressively better at it since I started a few years ago.

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).

Here's the problem, you're assuming that for "nothing" to exist it cannot even have a name.

So naturally your conclusion is going to be that "nothing" is impossible. That's a circular reasoning fallacy.

However, in calling it "Nothing" we are violating the fact that it is, by nature of lacking any sort of qualities, undefinable. But even to say it is undefinable is assigning it a quality, which is another violation. This can continue on in what I'm sure is some form of a paradox.

It doesn't violate anything! Your word and my word, "nothing," are just words. They are not inherent parts of the nothingness we're describing any more than the word "blue" is somehow part of the sky.

To examine this, it becomes important to find out how we perceive and comprehend Nothing. This, however, becomes impossible as well.
Try to form an image in your head of what Nothing would look/be like. Whether you are aware of it or not, you would probably assign it values of "empty" or "dark", which as I explained earlier is illegal.

Of course it would be empty - it has no mass and no volume.

Of course it would be dark - it has no light.

The labels don't change the hypothetical make-up of a complete lack of things.

Otherwise, if I renamed my German Shephard a French Poodle, would that mean my dog is suddenly going to surrender instead of fighting people? I think not.

Try a meditative trance if you want nothingness. Don't use drugs, either. Just let your mind go. Pretty simple, but surprisingly difficult.

Have you ever managed it?
If so, kudos to you.
I might try it out myself someday...maybe.

Of course it would be empty - it has no mass and no volume.

Of course it would be dark - it has no light.

The labels don't change the hypothetical make-up of a complete lack of things.

Otherwise, if I renamed my German Shephard a French Poodle, would that mean my dog is suddenly going to surrender instead of fighting people? I think not.

Mmhmm.

Or is light the absence of dark?

True.

Are you sure it wouldn't?:p

Mmhmm.

Or is light the absence of dark?


Nah, light is visible electromagnetic energy. Dark is just less visible electromagnetic energy.

Completely dark would have to be in a place where there was no energy at all. I.E, nothingness.


True.

Are you sure it wouldn't?:p

I don't know, I'm not a dog owner. But let me put it this way, I can start calling Laetitia Casta my girlfriend and she's not really going to be.

Now I've depressed myself.

Of course it would be empty - it has no mass and no volume.

Of course it would be dark - it has no light.

The labels don't change the hypothetical make-up of a complete lack of things.

Otherwise, if I renamed my German Shephard a French Poodle, would that mean my dog is suddenly going to surrender instead of fighting people? I think not.

But saying it has no mass and no volume makes it SOMETHING, which would therefore make it not NOTHING.

I did not mean to say that a label will change its make-up... I'm merely saying that, because we are trying to give labels to something that is supposed to be "nothing", we can't truly comprehend that "nothing". It has nothing to do with changing what is being labeled.
Calling your dog a French Poodle would probably confuse people because of how you labeled it. That has no effect on how they might comprehend it (most likely still as a "German Shephard"... or whatever they would have thought of it as being before).

Nah, light is visible electromagnetic energy. Dark is just less visible electromagnetic energy.

Completely dark would have to be in a place where there was no energy at all. I.E, nothingness.




I don't know, I'm not a dog owner. But let me put it this way, I can start calling Laetitia Casta my girlfriend and she's not really going to be.

Now I've depressed myself.

Ah.. No energy might appear purple for all we know...ignoring the fact that color only exists when there are waves of light..

It hasn't worked on her so far..:( I mean..what? Yea, nothingness...good stuff...

Here's a very basic summary of what I call "The concept of Nothingness and the inability of any living creature to fully comprehend it":

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).
However, in calling it "Nothing" we are violating the fact that it is, by nature of lacking any sort of qualities, undefinable. But even to say it is undefinable is assigning it a quality, which is another violation. This can continue on in what I'm sure is some form of a paradox.
To examine this, it becomes important to find out how we perceive and comprehend Nothing. This, however, becomes impossible as well.
Try to form an image in your head of what Nothing would look/be like. Whether you are aware of it or not, you would probably assign it values of "empty" or "dark", which as I explained earlier is illegal. It is understandable that we assign it such values because humans rely heavily on language.
But what about, say, a shark? It does not have any sort of identifiable language (in the sense that humans do, but this is debatable), but it can obviously assign values or qualities to objects in some way to distinguish one thing from another (such as a type of fish that is good to eat from one that is not).
The shark, too, would run into the same problems as a human. Any attempt to comprehend Nothing would involve assigning it a quality or value, which again is illegal.
Nothing cannot be dark or light, red or green or orange, fat or stupid or 7.5 or bookbag or polynomial or shyly or wow or again? because these are all values or qualities. It cannot even be Nothing. It is merely .
(NOTE: there is supposed to be an empty space between "merely" and the last period...)

I might've overlooked some glaringly obvious logical fallacy... this was a very quick summary I typed up for one of my friends recently.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms?

You have to be very careful about differentiating comprehension and imagination. Generally, they're accepted to be two different things. I can "comprehend" a thousand sided equilateral polygon, but the human mind is simply incapable of "imagining" anything larger than around 15, or so, sided equilateral polygon.

But, yes, I'd agree that the human mind is incapable of accurately imagining nothing. We tend to fill emptiness with black or white, not "lack of color", which are different things. This is similar to Freud's theory that we cannot imagine our own death, our minds are simply incapable of doing it because the very concept of our own inexistence is completely incomprehensible to our minds for the reason that any imagining of it places our own "inner I" as witness to the event.

Well, us humans cannot comprehend an existence without our own consciousness.

Well, us humans cannot comprehend an existence without our own consciousness.

Pretty much...
since if we were comprehending it, we would be using our minds, ergo conscious in some respect. Its vertical reasoning.

Pretty much...
since if we were comprehending it, we would be using our minds, ergo conscious in some respect. Its vertical reasoning.

Exactly, so even if we think of 'nothingness' as 'blackness' or 'darkness', we are still giving it a material value. Interesting stuff.

You, my friend, are touching on what they call "enlightenment," I think.

But saying it has no mass and no volume makes it SOMETHING

No, it doesn't. Something without mass, volume and energy doesn't exist. Ergo, nothing.

I did not mean to say that a label will change its make-up... I'm merely saying that, because we are trying to give labels to something that is supposed to be "nothing", we can't truly comprehend that "nothing". It has nothing to do with changing what is being labeled.

All things - including a lack of anything - must be labeled for us to even communicate about them. That doesn't mean it's incomprehensible.

You, my friend, are touching on what they call "enlightenment," I think.

Pretty crazy for some kid who just turned 18 this year, huh?... and graduated from high school this year. No lie.




But even if we didn't give it a label, and merely tried to just picture it in our minds, it still wouldn't work.

But even if we didn't give it a label, and merely tried to just picture it in our minds, it still wouldn't work.

Again, that's because you're meshing two independent concepts of intellect. Picture a chiliagon (how chilia = 1k? I don't know, Descartes was a jackass a leave it at that), the thousand-sided polygon I spoke of earlier. Can you do it? Unless you're lying, you can't. You can comprehend what one is, you can envision a kind of vague, blurred image of one, but you'll be unable to imagine (picture inside your mind) a thing with a thousand distinct and individual sides.

Again, that's because you're meshing two independent concepts of intellect. Picture a chiliagon (how chilia = 1k? I don't know, Descartes was a jackass a leave it at that), the thousand-sided polygon I spoke of earlier. Can you do it? Unless you're lying, you can't. You can comprehend what one is, you can envision a kind of vague, blurred image of one, but you'll be unable to imagine (picture inside your mind) a thing with a thousand distinct and individual sides.

I can comprehend it. It would look circular, but up close you would see that each line is straight and connects to another one that is offset by 0.36 degrees. :)

Here's a very basic summary of what I call "The concept of Nothingness and the inability of any living creature to fully comprehend it":

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).

However, in calling it "Nothing" we are violating the fact that it is, by nature of lacking any sort of qualities, undefinable. But even to say it is undefinable is assigning it a quality, which is another violation. This can continue on in what I'm sure is some form of a paradox.


The "nothing" paradox, first found (and totally misunderstood) in western philosophy by Parmenides about 2500 years ago, has been already deeply analysed.

"Nothing" isn't about "undefinability" - this is already a logical fallacy, because you are describing, hence defining, what it is.

The absolute "Nothing" is a possible state of a physical system. In this state, ALL measurable quantities in a defined (not necessarily bounded) volume of space-time (like electromagnetical field, gravitational field, number of particles...) have value "0".

When you ask "what's in this box?" and you get the answer "nothing", the meaning of it is: "disregarding air and particles from the box itself, the measure of the number of single identifiable and distinguishable objects, which is a non-negative real number (or a non-negative integer), is 0". We could call this "nothing" a "common nothing" or an "everyday nothing".

Look about the theory of measure (Lebesgue et al.).

I can comprehend it. It would look circular, but up close you would see that each line is straight and connects to another one that is offset by 0.36 degrees. :)

I'd call this a win. :)

What we can conceive is nothing like the world at all... so why bother with an unconceivable nothing?

But if we could say delete a section of space, the result might be the nothing you're looking for. I, obviously, can't imagine what a missing section of space is going to be like.

Kind of like saying, "I delete the numbers between 1 and 2!"

What we can conceive is nothing like the world at all... so why bother with an unconceivable nothing?

Kind of like saying, "I delete the numbers between 1 and 2!"

Maths isn't your thing, is it?

There are aleph-one real numbers between 1 and 2.
There are aleph-zero rational numbers between 1 and 2.
And zero (a perfectly conceivable idea) integer numbers beween 1 and 2.

If I take away the real numbers between 1 and 2 from all the real numbers, I still get aleph-one real numbers.
If I take away the rational numbers between 1 and 2 from all the all rational numbers, I still get aleph-zero rational numbers.

True state of nothingness can be achieved, though it will require your brain to be in an absolute non-active state i.e. death.

Assuming ofcourse there is no such thing as a soul and an afterlife.

So I doubt there is even "blackness" when in death due to the fact that there is nobody to observe this.

However there is no such "nothingness" in our observable universe (i.e. the universe of the living observers) because nothingness here would merely mean a lack of light, therefor darkness.

Just my view on things and for the sake of enlightenment, I actually do hope im proven wrong.

Here's a very basic summary of what I call "The concept of Nothingness and the inability of any living creature to fully comprehend it":

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).
However, in calling it "Nothing" we are violating the fact that it is, by nature of lacking any sort of qualities, undefinable. But even to say it is undefinable is assigning it a quality, which is another violation. This can continue on in what I'm sure is some form of a paradox.
To examine this, it becomes important to find out how we perceive and comprehend Nothing. This, however, becomes impossible as well.
Try to form an image in your head of what Nothing would look/be like. Whether you are aware of it or not, you would probably assign it values of "empty" or "dark", which as I explained earlier is illegal. It is understandable that we assign it such values because humans rely heavily on language.
But what about, say, a shark? It does not have any sort of identifiable language (in the sense that humans do, but this is debatable), but it can obviously assign values or qualities to objects in some way to distinguish one thing from another (such as a type of fish that is good to eat from one that is not).
The shark, too, would run into the same problems as a human. Any attempt to comprehend Nothing would involve assigning it a quality or value, which again is illegal.
Nothing cannot be dark or light, red or green or orange, fat or stupid or 7.5 or bookbag or polynomial or shyly or wow or again? because these are all values or qualities. It cannot even be Nothing. It is merely .
(NOTE: there is supposed to be an empty space between "merely" and the last period...)

I might've overlooked some glaringly obvious logical fallacy... this was a very quick summary I typed up for one of my friends recently.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms?

This has probably been said, but I haven't said it yet so here goes. In another thread about language we have already discovered that language is what we use to label absract concepts. We can though have them concepts and not find the language to communicate it.

Mind you having said that the label we use to describe the concept of nothing, is nothing. So it follows if we can label it, then somebody already has had the concept.

Try reading William Grey's 'Concepts of Qabalah' Specificy chapter one.(if you can find a copy, I suspect that it is out of print or may have been renamed)?

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).

Seems to me that with the terms you're working with Nothing can be in possession of both spacial and temporal extension.

Of course it would be empty - it has no mass and no volume.

Of course it would be dark - it has no light.In the absence of everything, there's neither emptiness nor darkness. "Nothing" would need physical attributes, like spatial dimensions, for those things.The labels don't change the hypothetical make-up of a complete lack of things.That I'll agree with though.

Exactly, we cannot imagine Nothing. Just as we cannot see or imagine a colour on a spectrum which is completely unreadable to our eyes. Everything we ever create or do is based of something that existed and was known about prior to..it. So, since we as a human race have never experienced 'nothing' or anything similar to it, we never can.

We've experienced 'nothing' before. Everyone has, until they were born, and will again, after they die.

True 'nothing' is lack of universe, lack of a lack of universe, lack of anything, lack of a lack of anything. It's truly nothing.

Again: to imagine 'nothing', just think back to before you were born.

We've experienced 'nothing' before. Everyone has, until they were born, and will again, after they die.

True 'nothing' is lack of universe, lack of a lack of universe, lack of anything, lack of a lack of anything. It's truly nothing.

Again: to imagine 'nothing', just think back to before you were born.

You can't. You didn't exist before you were born. There isn't any memory to tap into

You can't. You didn't exist before you were born. There isn't any memory to tap into

Which is exactly what nothing is.

How do you actively imagine nothing. Surely not imagining nothing is closer to it than trying to picture it since there's nothing to picture

You don't 'actively' imagine it, like you don't 'actively' use your sight. You don't usually have to consciously want to look at something specifically to use your eyes, yes? Same deal.

Just think back into nothingness. Thinking about how futile it may or may not be means you're not doing it right.

Which is exactly what nothing is.

How do you actively imagine nothing. Surely not imagining nothing is closer to it than trying to picture it since there's nothing to picture

How do you actively imagine nothing. Surely not imagining nothing is closer to it than trying to picture it since there's nothing to picture

You don't have to have a mental image of something in order to comprehend it. When you say imagine nothing, try emptying you mind of all thoughts. That is a head full of nothing.

Firstly, let's look at the popular meaning of the word. Nothing, colloquially, represents a state of acknowledged apparent absence of a particular range of concepts; ie, "not a thing". If you're looking for some items of significance and fail to locate any such item, you can be said to have found nothing, since there are no perceived instances of the arguments of your search. This is without either having failed to perceive or observe other potential objects of the senses or having no idea of that which you are unable to locate. In fact, the absence to which we refer is a statement of relation between concept and the framework within which we search, and an assertion of absence in perception requires three things: an acknowledgement of a given concept, an acknowledgement of perceptual instance and an active ability to determine when concept is not instantiated in perception.

Given this idea, it is in practice easy for a human to thus consider and conceive of the idea of absolute nothingness (which I think you're referring to) by simply naming it as the result of the application of the absence of totality to the framework of universality. It would even be difficult but possible for a human (given the limited human intellect), if confronted with the sudden image of absolute nothingness, to understand it in terms of the absence of everything within his own conceptual framework; in fact, it would be natural for him to do so (eventually, after a period of prolonged panic). What may not be so obvious is how the individual can comprehend the full gravity of the absence of totality or the scale to which it affects universality; this is not because humans are incapable of understanding absence, but rather because as composite members of the universe of finite conception they cannot fully comprehend that which they are providing as arguments to the relation.

The really interesting bit comes when you try to evaluate the nature of absence, but that's for later, methinks.

You don't have to have a mental image of something in order to comprehend it. When you say imagine nothing, try emptying you mind of all thoughts. That is a head full of nothing.

Well, not quite - it's not perfect nothingness, because it's still a head, even if it's got nothing in it.

Here's a very basic summary of what I call "The concept of Nothingness and the inability of any living creature to fully comprehend it":

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).
However, in calling it "Nothing" we are violating the fact that it is, by nature of lacking any sort of qualities, undefinable. But even to say it is undefinable is assigning it a quality, which is another violation. This can continue on in what I'm sure is some form of a paradox.
Gotta have some word for it, elsewise how could we talk about it? The word is a placeholder for the idea, which is all the context it needs or will ever get.

To examine this, it becomes important to find out how we perceive and comprehend Nothing. This, however, becomes impossible as well.
Try to form an image in your head of what Nothing would look/be like. Whether you are aware of it or not, you would probably assign it values of "empty" or "dark", which as I explained earlier is illegal. It is understandable that we assign it such values because humans rely heavily on language.
But what about, say, a shark? It does not have any sort of identifiable language (in the sense that humans do, but this is debatable), but it can obviously assign values or qualities to objects in some way to distinguish one thing from another (such as a type of fish that is good to eat from one that is not).
The shark, too, would run into the same problems as a human. Any attempt to comprehend Nothing would involve assigning it a quality or value, which again is illegal.
The day the world started making sense was the day I realised nothing. It's not impossible, just ineffable.

The usual method of proponents is to subtract everything else. :)

Nothing cannot be dark or light, red or green or orange, fat or stupid or 7.5 or bookbag or polynomial or shyly or wow or again? because these are all values or qualities. It cannot even be Nothing. It is merely .
(NOTE: there is supposed to be an empty space between "merely" and the last period...)

I might've overlooked some glaringly obvious logical fallacy... this was a very quick summary I typed up for one of my friends recently.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms?
You've got it right, except that it can only be "nothing."

The list of non-even non-odd whole numbers.

Here's a very basic summary of what I call "The concept of Nothingness and the inability of any living creature to fully comprehend it":

"Nothing" is the lack of anything at all, be it physical substance or any sort of (un)measurable qualities that can be assigned to it by a living creature (one such quality would be its name, Nothing).
However, in calling it "Nothing" we are violating the fact that it is, by nature of lacking any sort of qualities, undefinable. But even to say it is undefinable is assigning it a quality, which is another violation. This can continue on in what I'm sure is some form of a paradox.
To examine this, it becomes important to find out how we perceive and comprehend Nothing. This, however, becomes impossible as well.
Try to form an image in your head of what Nothing would look/be like. Whether you are aware of it or not, you would probably assign it values of "empty" or "dark", which as I explained earlier is illegal. It is understandable that we assign it such values because humans rely heavily on language.
But what about, say, a shark? It does not have any sort of identifiable language (in the sense that humans do, but this is debatable), but it can obviously assign values or qualities to objects in some way to distinguish one thing from another (such as a type of fish that is good to eat from one that is not).
The shark, too, would run into the same problems as a human. Any attempt to comprehend Nothing would involve assigning it a quality or value, which again is illegal.
Nothing cannot be dark or light, red or green or orange, fat or stupid or 7.5 or bookbag or polynomial or shyly or wow or again? because these are all values or qualities. It cannot even be Nothing. It is merely .
(NOTE: there is supposed to be an empty space between "merely" and the last period...)

I might've overlooked some glaringly obvious logical fallacy... this was a very quick summary I typed up for one of my friends recently.
Comments? Questions? Criticisms?

Interesting, however I feel this is, in the end, semantics. You shouldn't treat nothing as a noun, but as an adjective: no - thing. I don't see a contradiction or paradox in saying that once you get to the edge of all matter in the universe there is nothing further, since you are really saying there is no thing or in better English, no other thing. You are not assigning anything a property or value since there is nothing to assign, so instead you say that there is no thing left, or no objects to assign properties to left if you want to get ultra specific.

Interesting, however I feel this is, in the end, semantics. You shouldn't treat nothing as a noun, but as an adjective: no - thing. I don't see a contradiction or paradox in saying that once you get to the edge of all matter in the universe there is nothing further, since you are really saying there is no thing or in better English, no other thing. You are not assigning anything a property or value since there is nothing to assign, so instead you say that there is no thing left, or no objects to assign properties to left if you want to get ultra specific.

Wow. You're right, it is semantics when you look at it that way.

You don't have to have a mental image of something in order to comprehend it. When you say imagine nothing, try emptying you mind of all thoughts. That is a head full of nothing.

That isn't imagining though is it. That's clearing your mind of everything

..........although i'd like to say that i'm aware I know i'm probably talking rubbish

Edit : Actually don't worry about replying to this. After reading more of the posts i'm starting to comprehend what you're saying a bit more. Thanks :)

The list of non-even non-odd whole numbers.

I didn't realise i didn't exist. ;)

I can comprehend it. It would look circular, but up close you would see that each line is straight and connects to another one that is offset by 0.36 degrees. :)

Exactly, I never said you couldn't comprehend it. I can to, that's easy. But you are not imagining (the act of having a full image within your mind) it, unless you can count each individual side as something unique to itself. The fact that the first thing you used to qualify your comprehension of it (it would look circular, but up close) betrays this fact.

Again, there is a difference between comprehending and imagining.

Exactly, I never said you couldn't comprehend it. I can to, that's easy. But you are not imagining (the act of having a full image within your mind) it, unless you can count each individual side as something unique to itself. The fact that the first thing you used to qualify your comprehension of it (it would look circular, but up close) betrays this fact.

It would look circular, and you would have to look closely at the sides to see it wasn't. It's still imagining because a "mental image" doesn't have to be perfect. Nor in fact, is there any real way to verify just how "full" an image is in comparison to the reality.

Again, there is a difference between comprehending and imagining.

The argument seems to be that neither is possible with this case or with "nothingness." I refute both.

That isn't imagining though is it. That's clearing your mind of everything

..........although i'd like to say that i'm aware I know i'm probably talking rubbish

No, you're quite right. Imagination supplies images; nothing is a lack of them.

So can nothingness even exist by definition?

So can nothingness even exist by definition?As an intellectual or mathematical construct, yes. But in real world terms, no. Nothingness is non-existence, so obviously it cannot exist.

Pretty crazy for some kid who just turned 18 this year, huh?

Not really.

And...?

Or to put it another way,

So...?

So...?

Apparently:

Nothing does not exist.
Anything which is possible is not nothing.
Therefore everything possible exists.

There is only text here because the forum won't let me create a blank post.