Does nothing exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]I understand those are different propositions...

Good.

See... we have no capacity to know the Easter Bunny, FSM, or God exist outside of them being a concept. If they are not a concept, then you can't consider them: simple as that.

Yes, but the existence of them as simply concepts and the existence of them themselves beyond that are two different propositions and we mustn't confuse the two remember.

Everything exists (tautologically true... else none of it could be a thing)

True. Just as nothing can't exist. Every THING must exist, because if it doesn't exist, it's not a thing. But some things are merely concepts in our head - that doesn't mean they also exist beyond that. Those, once again, are two different propositions.

... therefore my questions are leveled at wether nothing exists as well, as even nothingness would be a thing (that thing being no thing )

"Nothingness" the concept is a thing, it exists as a concept. But nothingness cannot exist as not only a concept but as an actual thing beyond that because it's not a thing and something that is not a thing cannot exist by definition, because it's not something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat

I think nothing both exists and does not, at the same time.

We cannot understand what that intuitively means though. Quantum physics is very different because it can be calculated and not (at least not yet, and maybe never) understood on an intuitive level. We make our definitions up with our own intuitive way of defining the world - which is very different to quantum physics. By our own logical rules and definitions, something cannot not exist and also exist at the same time. A cannot =A and not A at the same time. The fact that the Schrodingers cat concept contradicts this is merely because we're talking about quantum physics/mechanics there - nothing has been proven that this is somehow literally the case - that something can and cannot be, that doesn't even make any sense by definition: But that's the whole thing with quantum mechanics, it cannot be properly understood on an intuitive level it seems (at least not yet).

The calculations make sense, but we more or less really don't seem to know what a lot of it means yet.

Of course... as i already explained before: to consider nothing... it must already exist, even if just as a concept.

'it' isn't 'it' existing as a concept though. 'It' can ONLY exist as a concept. Nothing cannot exist by definition. The concept of nothing existing is a completely different proposition entirely. So to say that 'it' exists as a concept doesn't really make sense to me - 'it' cannot exist at all, nothing cannot exist at all, by definition. The existence of the CONCEPT of nothing is a completely different proposition entirely, once again, don't confuse the two.

And we have no understanding of anything that is not a concept... therefore nothing must exist at least as a concept, and perhaps as more (or rather, less).

Nothing as just the existence of a thing that is the CONCEPT of it, and nothing as a thing itself are two completely different concepts themseleves. Nothing cannot exist by definition - the concept of nothing existing beyond a concept is a ridiculous concept - it shouldn't be taken seriously. The concept of the concept of nothing existing obviously is not a ridiculous concept to take seriously, because we can be pretty damn sure that the concept of the concept of nothing exists because....well, we can conceptualize it.

^ Counterpoints waiting to be refuted. ^_^

I hope.

EvF

[Violet]

[...]I understand those are different propositions...

Good.

See... we have no capacity to know the Easter Bunny, FSM, or God exist outside of them being a concept. If they are not a concept, then you can't consider them: simple as that.

Yes, but the existence of them as simply concepts and the existence of them themselves beyond that are two different propositions and we mustn't confuse the two remember.

Indeed... but remember that we can't know of anything that is not a concept. It may be true that absolutely nothing I can currently interact with exists outside of my mind. It was a rather solipsist point to make And it can be countered by "but how can you prove that you exist at all, and are not an elaborate name for a clump of purple tiger fur?"... after all the thinking itself may well be an illusion... as with the ability to perceive. Hence I'm destroying this point because I really really hate solipsism

Everything exists (tautologically true... else none of it could be a thing)

True. Just as nothing can't exist. Every THING must exist, because if it doesn't exist, it's not a thing. But some things are merely concepts in our head - that doesn't mean they also exist beyond that. Those, once again, are two different propositions.

Ah... but must a thing be so to exist? Whilst 'thing' posits that it exists.. is it the only sense of existing (to be a thing)? While nonexistence cannot exist (at least in a logical environment, as that's a contradiction)... why cannot nothing exist? Would nothing not exist as a lack of something... in the way as atheism is a lack of theism? As a describer for what it is not?

... therefore my questions are leveled at wether nothing exists as well, as even nothingness would be a thing (that thing being no thing )

"Nothingness" the concept is a thing, it exists as a concept. But nothingness cannot exist as not only a concept but as an actual thing beyond that because it's not a thing and something that is not a thing cannot exist by definition, because it's not something.

If nothingness cannot exist... so too can no vacuum, void, or lack of being a thing. I meant to suggest that it was a thing in that it is a descriptor of there being nothing... which of course makes it a concept. But wether nothingness exists or not is a different question from wether or not it is a thing... would you not say? If not... then why would you say so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat

I think nothing both exists and does not, at the same time.

We cannot understand what that intuitively means though. Quantum physics is very different because it can be calculated and not (at least not yet, and maybe never) understood on an intuitive level. We make our definitions up with our own intuitive way of defining the world - which is very different to quantum physics. By our own logical rules and definitions, something cannot not exist and also exist at the same time. A cannot =A and not A at the same time. The fact that the Schrodingers cat concept contradicts this is merely because we're talking about quantum physics/mechanics there - nothing has been proven that this is somehow literally the case - that something can and cannot be, that doesn't even make any sense by definition: But that's the whole thing with quantum mechanics, it cannot be properly understood on an intuitive level it seems (at least not yet).

The calculations make sense, but we more or less really don't seem to know what a lot of it means yet.

Well done I suppose the even more fundamental question would in that case be "can something exist outside of logic?"... while it is demonstrably true of people... is it true of our very physics? Would not a singularity warp all logic?

Of course... as i already explained before: to consider nothing... it must already exist, even if just as a concept.

'it' isn't 'it' existing as a concept though. 'It' can ONLY exist as a concept. Nothing cannot exist by definition. The concept of nothing existing is a completely different proposition entirely. So to say that 'it' exists as a concept doesn't really make sense to me - 'it' cannot exist at all, nothing cannot exist at all, by definition. The existence of the CONCEPT of nothing is a completely different proposition entirely, once again, don't confuse the two.

No... nothing cannot be a thing by definition (not even when joking that it is a thing in its not being so ). The question of wether it exists remains.

And we have no understanding of anything that is not a concept... therefore nothing must exist at least as a concept, and perhaps as more (or rather, less).

Nothing as just the existence of a thing that is the CONCEPT of it, and nothing as a thing itself are two completely different concepts themseleves. Nothing cannot exist by definition - the concept of nothing existing beyond a concept is a ridiculous concept - it shouldn't be taken seriously. The concept of the concept of nothing existing obviously is not a ridiculous concept to take seriously, because we can be pretty damn sure that the concept of the concept of nothing exists because....well, we can conceptualize it.

Do I look like I'm taking this seriously? We have now established that nothing cannot be a thing (logically) by the law of contradiction. But the broader question now opens... must a concept be a thing to exist outside of its being a concept?

^ Counterpoints waiting to be refuted. ^_^

I hope.

EvF

Again well done with that ^ Another few counterpoints... though not as diverse as before

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

this post reminds me of something War_On_Error posted on his xanga

http://war-on-error.xanga.com/723407598/...then-some/

Shotgun says (link):

I (as a Christian apologist) will not let you, or Richard Carrier, get away with alluding to other people without first proving that other people exist.

Yes, proving Richard Carrier exists is impossible. But assuming God exists...priceless..