Nothingness

[Violet]

Okay, let's start with semantics. Everything exists for sure, because "thing" implies existence.

That's better

The question is whether it exists only as a concept, or as an object locatable in time and place (or some other framework).

Considering that every 'thing' is only a concept as long as something is defining it... is not the first most important question instead: does everything only exist as I observe, or do I not observe all the ways in which all things might exist? This is a step past solipsism (all you can be sure of is that you exist, trust in nothing but logic), and it is the question between self-objectivism and self-subjectivism. I'm being horrible and just assuming that you don't take the unfalsifiable position

All you can be sure of... is that in *your* existence: you are seeing the universe from your perspective. It is from there, that you might ask yourself the nature of those things you see... defining and organizing and separating and all manners of wonderful intellectual activity. You see... everything exists as everything, but a perceiving thing might observe something, and in their observation of it also lies the form of it.

So... if I observe a train, that train might be physical, metaphysical, mental, spiritual, solid, liquid, gas, plasma, tigerfur, wooden, small, large, interplanetary, nonrailed, red, purple, green, water soluble, 2-dimensional, 5-dimensional, hungry, happy, sad, glow-in-the-dark... all of these impact the form of the train that I am observing. 'Where' the train is... is only an attribute of the train's identity, not a separate question from it

I'm pretty sure that there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns which can be located in our universe at any time, but IPU's existence as an important atheist meme can't really be disputed.

Rainbow unicorns, the legendary 18th species of dolphins, on the other hand, not only can be located in our Universe at any time, but live in every rainbow within it

You're noting intersubjectivity right now, where in the 'world' of <the unspecified we>: a number of rules/beliefs/observations might be considered shared. However... that is not to say that there are not perceivers in your very 'world' who might perceive an IPU sometime.

Even though we might be an interconnected group of very similar perceivers... we each still have a differing perception, if only by when or where we perceive from.

"Nothingness," I think, can only exist as a concept. To establish the "real" existence of something, it would have to be part of some framework (probably spacetime)-- and a framework is something. The fact that ANYTHING exists means that nothingness is impossible, because that particular nothingness has a property-- the potential for non-nothingness. And I'd say that a property is definitely something.

It can only exist as a concept? Try this: what lies beyond everything?

The fact that anything non-nothing exists means that everything being nothing is impossible... but nothing doesn't have to be everything to still be nothing, does it? Nothing is definitely something... how could it be otherwise?

What if I told you... that 'the framework' is a concept?

---

My goodness, little monkey responds with the same shit... again?

* Violet sighs.

I'll get back to play with his irrelevance... later Maybe tomorrow, maybe a week from now, maybe tonight or in ten seconds, but definitely not now.