Does nothing exist?

[Rhizomorph13]

The way I understand the term void it is almost always something because it is really just an absence of the thing you would like to have there. For example when soldering electronics parts to circuit boards the solder balls have voids in them which are really trapped gases. A void is a measureable empty place between things and because it has three dimensions I would say it is not nothing. It is simply, either a rarer form of the things that surround it or another type of material holding the space within another substance.

Nothing, the concept, points at "no thing" the absence of any thing that is within the set of all things that exist or are real in any way shape or form.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

So is a vacuum a measurement of space containing nothing? There is no perfect known vacuum.. even space has some hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. what about outside the perimeter of the universe.. presuming you believe there to be one? is there 'nothing' beyond there?

[Welsh cake]

Does the state of nonexistence exist (despite the apparent contradiction?)? Everything exists... but do non-things exist? Or will we hold to the classic view that nothingness does not exist as it contradicts its own existence if it were to exist? But what impact would that have on everything existing?

Obviously you haven't seen my wallet after bills and before payday.

[Violet]

I agree... but how could we consider anything about nothing except as a concept? Why can nothing not exist as something, especially when it by definition must be a thing?

Because you've confusing 'it' 'itself' and it as a concept again. It itself can't exist by definition. The concept of it is different. The concept of God exists but that is completely different to God itself existing. There almost certainly is no God in my mind, but the concept of God surely exists, as does the easter bunny. The concept of "nothing" (what we mean by "nothing") exists certainly, the concept of anything we can conceive can exist as a concept. But "Nothing" itself by definition can't exist, the concept of it is different. God almost certainly doesn't exist - "Nothing" can't exist by definition - because it is the opposite of existence. The concept of both can exist.

"The concept of nothing exists" and "Nothing exists" are two different propositions. Of course the concept of "nothing" exists, for that is simply the existence of what we mean when we use the concept of "nothing". "Nothing exists" however, simply means "Not one thing exists" which is the opposite of existence - "Nothing" itself cannot exist by definition. That is different to it's concept, hopefully you won't confuse the two again

Be careful not to confuse concepts with the actual thing. I heard that there was a book called something like "The evolution of God", and it gives lots of evidence and support for the concept of God, as if this somehow gives evidence for God. But that is ridiculous of course, the two are different things. The concept of the Easter Bunny exists, the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I believe in the concepts of both of them - them themselves however I think almost certainly do not exist. Those are different propositions to the mere statement of the concept of them existing.

I understand those are different propositions... but we can't know it doesn't exist or not exist beyond its being a concept (As has long ago been established? If you wish to argue that point then very well). It is only as a concept that we can consider nothing's existence or perhaps nonexistence

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. Everything exists (tautologically true... else none of it could be a thing)... therefore my questions are leveled at wether nothing exists as well, as even nothingness would be a thing (that thing being no thing ).

By the way, I'm only trying to create non-metaphysical counterpoints here... I hold to the understanding that nothing does not exist.

And cannot. By definition. We'd have to change the definition for it to exist, because it cannot exist any more by definition than "A" can be "not A" by definition.

Existing is not something that "nothing" can do. Nothing can't do or be anything because it is nothing at all. Hence, it cannot exist - it is the opposite of existence.

Ok, hopefully you're clear of my position on this matter now lol.

EvF

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

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

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

^ Counterpoints waiting to be refuted. ^_^

[downbeatplumb]

Nothing exists as a concept only.
Similar to infinity, infinity is a descrioption of a process not a 'thing' in its own right.
'Nothing' is just a description of an absecnece of things.
Basically I reject your assertion that it can be a thing and you'll have to be bloomin convincing to move me from that position.

[Violet]

Nothing exists as a concept only.
Similar to infinity, infinity is a descrioption of a process not a 'thing' in its own right.
'Nothing' is just a description of an absecnece of things.
Basically I reject your assertion that it can be a thing and you'll have to be bloomin convincing to move me from that position.

How can a process not be a 'thing'?

Illustrate to me how the existence of a process is different than the existence of a thing?

Example being say evolution. Would you not posit that evolution exists? If so... then why would you say that infinity and nothingness do not in fact exist (as more than concepts, and if you do in fact think of them as a 'process')?

And yet we have a name for that absence of things. Similar to how a lack of theism would be atheism... itself descriptive only as what it is not. No thing is only descriptive so far as its not being a thing... but then what is it? Is it at all? How could it be an it in the first place if it does not first exist?

Perhaps nothing doesn't posit that it doesn't exist at all... but rather that it exists in a state where it is not a thing (that being what specifically does being a thing entail?)? If 'thing' is defined as an object... then its existence is fine. But what about nonexistence, even granting that nothing exists? Does nonexistence exist? A state that does not exist... surely that must exist if only by not existing (In the way atheism exists only in its not being theism)?

^ More counterpoints.

[downbeatplumb]

How can a process not be a 'thing'?

Illustrate to me how the existence of a process is different than the existence of a thing?

Example being say evolution. Would you not posit that evolution exists? If so... then why would you say that infinity and nothingness do not in fact exist (as more than concepts, and if you do in fact think of them as a 'process')?

And yet we have a name for that absence of things. Similar to how a lack of theism would be atheism... itself descriptive only as what it is not. No thing is only descriptive so far as its not being a thing... but then what is it? Is it at all? How could it be an it in the first place if it does not first exist?

Perhaps nothing doesn't posit that it doesn't exist at all... but rather that it exists in a state where it is not a thing (that being what specifically does being a thing entail?)? If 'thing' is defined as an object... then its existence is fine. But what about nonexistence, even granting that nothing exists? Does nonexistence exist? A state that does not exist... surely that must exist if only by not existing (In the way atheism exists only in its not being theism)?

^ More counterpoints.

'Nothing' is a description of an abscence of something, the concept of nothing exists, but if that is what your are putting as a measure of existance then so does god and the flying spaghetti monster.
This is a poor meaure of existance and I reject it.

[downbeatplumb]

I appologise for my messy posts and blame it on not being very good at the technical stuff.

[Violet]

'Nothing' is a description of an abscence of something, the concept of nothing exists, but if that is what your are putting as a measure of existance then so does god and the flying spaghetti monster.
This is a poor meaure of existance and I reject it.

But do absences of something exist or not? If they do then by definition nothing must exist... as only a descriptor of what it is not... in the same sense that atheism only exists in the sense that it is not theism. Is nothing a thing? No. Does it exist? Whyever would it not? Why could there be no 'vacuum'... no 'voids'?

Gods and flying spaghetti monsters truly might exist though... i certainly see no reason to believe in their existences as more than concepts... but the cosmos need not conform to my expectations of it. If the illogical can exist (in underlying physics, regardless that it can demonstrably exist in people)... then we likely have no way to understand what goes on 'within' it. Under such conditions the FSM and gods could perhaps easily exist.

Nothing, on the other hand, is somewhat more demonstrable. Would you say there is an everything? Of course you would (right? 0.o). Does this everything occupy limited (if expanding) 'space'? If so... what is beyond it? Absolutely nothing. Ergo... nothing exists. Does everything include voids that are only so in their not being things (and as such, not occupy limited 'space')? Then there are voids of things within everything. Ergo... nothing exists.

^ That last counterpoint is a bit better formulated than the others imo... someone 'annihilate' it for me!

[RedFish]

Nothing, on the other hand, is somewhat more demonstrable. Would you say there is an everything? Of course you would (right? 0.o). Does this everything occupy limited (if expanding) 'space'? If so... what is beyond it? Absolutely nothing. Ergo... nothing exists. Does everything include voids that are only so in their not being things (and as such, not occupy limited 'space')? Then there are voids of things within everything. Ergo... nothing exists.

^ That last counterpoint is a bit better formulated than the others imo... someone 'annihilate' it for me!

We use the term 'void' to describe a relative lack of 'something' ie solder, cheese etc within the confines of the universe. Outside is genuinely nothing, but only in as much as it is beyond our understanding. However, as soon as we quantify it, it becomes something. Nothing is merely an unknown something, therefore it has to exist before we 'know' of it. At least in theory....Well, I tried, but your logic is absolutely correct.

I'm a biker, my friends are mostly bikers. If I tried to discuss this with them they would kick my a** and throw me in the street. I hope you can understand why.