Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Void Wrote:Reference: "No, everything is one thing. The universe is one. Adding zero to this does not change it. And nothing is also a thing, so calling it zero is kinda funny really."
Whaaaaaat????
Everything is not a thing, it is a concept of the totality of all things, just like nothing is a concept of a complete absence of any things. How are many things just one thing? Are 14 things one thing? What if there are only 14 things, are they now 1 thing? How does that even work?
Quote:I agree that everything is the sum of all things. I do not believe the universe is everything. There is undeniably nothing outside of the universe. Hehe, i did it again. It's actually funny to me ^_^
Quote:Nothing is a thing, it is the absence of things. Let's look at that again... nothing is the absence of things. I agree that nothing contains no things. Hence the point of the thing in the first place?
Nothing neither contains nor IS a thing. The absence of energy is not energy, the absence of things is not a thing!
What exactly do you define a "thing" as?
Quote:Circles are fun... you don't need to be all arrogant like "until you agree", especially when the exact opposite could be said of you.
Sure, if I'm wrong then make a case, don't just assert that the absence of things is a thing (a statement that is nonsense). If you have an absence of things (0t) you do not have 1t! 0=/= 1 =/= 1+1+1...
Quote:Regardless, I do not believe it is a circle. It is quite clearcut to me, zero confusion even. Hence it's like reading farce when so many of you tell me otherwise. No doubt you have the same towards me. Only you lot seem confused
Your contention is literally nonsense.
Quote:Everything minus everything... is still everything. And it is also nothing.
That's like labling an empty Pen an "every sheep", it's not, it's "no sheep".
And even if we agreed, Everything, in a reality where there are things, is NOT no things. Propose a non-reality with no things and the sum of those non-things is nothing, you could just a tiny bit maybe not look like a fool for calling that "everything" but that still implies the existence of things, so it still doesn't work.
Quote:One thing is everything, and that one thing is nothing. Nothing is everything, everything is nothing. But only in that example. Everything is not nothing in non-equivilent examples. Oh, and nothing is everything except everything, always.
Everything means the sum of all things, to a non-reality the word is not applicable, not even when the non-reality is hypothetical. To say "everything" you necessarily need things to talk about, otherwise you are just stringing words together, much in the same way "square circle" sounds like it might be a thing but is really just nonsense.
Quote:Funnily enough, I already have it in my head that nothing = no things. However, I also understand that it is a thing. Not multiple things, mind. Just one.
No things means no things at all, not one, not 14, not a trillion.
You are saying that "nothing" = "no things" = "0 things" = "1 thing"!
April 8, 2011 at 10:11 am (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 10:12 am by Captain Scarlet.)
To state that nothing exists, is a horribly incoherent. By definition nothing must be the absence of anything; since we have never observed that in the whole of reality we can at least state to a very high degree of probability that nothing is not a possible state. In much the same way, when the something cannot arise from nothing argument is tripped out, that falsely assumes that the universe at T0 was in a state of nothingness. But this seems a highly improbable state of affairs. It is perhaps more interesting that there is only a small surplus of matter over antimatter in our universe and when all energy and matter is totaled on both sides of the positive and negative divide, there is a lot less in our universe than we suppose or observe. So in some sense a small something can give rise to bigger set of +ve somethings and -ve somethings.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
April 8, 2011 at 11:40 am (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 11:42 am by Violet.)
Void Wrote:Nothing, the absence of things, exists right now? Where?
You should stop relying on intuitions, like, now...
Yes. Outside of the universe.
Menotouchylinkys, explain it yourself ^_^
Void Wrote:Whaaaaaat????
Everything is not a thing, it is a concept of the totality of all things, just like nothing is a concept of a complete absence of any things. How are many things just one thing? Are 14 things one thing? What if there are only 14 things, are they now 1 thing? How does that even work?
Reference was what I said before so people wouldn't be lost with what you said. But i'll respond to 'this' again
Everything is a thing. Everything is also a concept. Nothing is a thing. Nothing is also a concept. Many soldiers 1 army. 14 things are one thing. If there are only 14 things, then those 14 things constitute everything, which is still 1. It works pretty simply, you're still caught up in something or other it seems though ^_^
Void Wrote:Nothing neither contains nor IS a thing. The absence of energy is not energy, the absence of things is not a thing!
What exactly do you define a "thing" as?
Nothing contains no things and is a thing itself. I would say that the absence of energy is a type of energy itself (0 energy). However, that is debatable. Unlike the absence of things being a thing. One is a question of physics, the other a point on the fundamental design of the 'greater existence', which is by nature unmeasurable from within said existence. Surely you can see how those are next to impossible to compare? And zero apples is also a thing. A thing that makes me hungry. And me no likey being hungry
A 'thing' is existence dissected into however one has defined it. Reality exists as one, it is we who identify 'things' where before there is everything. So we ignore most of everything to define what things we do to understand the universe along lines that can be tested and stuff ^_^
Quote:Sure, if I'm wrong then make a case, don't just assert that the absence of things is a thing (a statement that is nonsense). If you have an absence of things (0t) you do not have 1t! 0=/= 1 =/= 1+1+1...
You're making a false case, so really what should I do instead? It's not as if you agree on how to number either nothing or everything. You seem obsessed with neither of them being one thing, when infact they are both one thing. And both of them are equally full of 'thingness'. Nothing is 1 thing. Everything is 1 thing. For the sake of every god i do not believe in, stop trying to understand a thing to be 0 or 1+1+1+1... that's kinda ridiculous of you. If we are noting the number of things *within* everything and nothing, then we shall of course find many more amongst everything than nothing. But these in themselves are but 2 things.
Really, what case *is* there to make? ^_^
Void Wrote:Your contention is literally nonsense.
You use 'literally' and 'nonsense' and probably other words more than you should, I think
Void Wrote:That's like labling an empty Pen an "every sheep", it's not, it's "no sheep".
It is true though. A pen empty of sheep contains every sheep in that pen, which happens to also be no sheep. I really don't see a flaw in this at all?
Quote:And even if we agreed, Everything, in a reality where there are things, is NOT no things. Propose a non-reality with no things and the sum of those non-things is nothing, you could just a tiny bit maybe not look like a fool for calling that "everything" but that still implies the existence of things, so it still doesn't work.
My example was everything minus everything is no things. I have claimed from the start that everything is not nothing unless it subtracts from itself or is nothing to begin with. We're discussing a philosophical matter, do you really expect non-hypothetical examples of a hypothetical proposition?
Anyway... the eventual conclusion of this is that nothing is a thing and that everything and nothing can exist as one and the same given that there is nothing but nothing. There is more than nothing though, so that's really just an exercise in using your brain
Void Wrote:Everything means the sum of all things, to a non-reality the word is not applicable, not even when the non-reality is hypothetical. To say "everything" you necessarily need things to talk about, otherwise you are just stringing words together, much in the same way "square circle" sounds like it might be a thing but is really just nonsense.
Sum of all things is infinite. Everything is one thing though. And so is nothing.
To say everything, you need nothing to talk about at all. Which is to say that everything applies at all times everywhere/time. Given noplace/time nothing, everything remains what it is.
Square circle is a contradiction, dead void... granted it may be true in some warped location in physics... but it is certainly not compatible in my understanding of the world.
Void Wrote:No things means no things at all, not one, not 14, not a trillion.
You are saying that "nothing" = "no things" = "0 things" = "1 thing"!
I agree that there are no things in nothing. But nothing is still a thing.
And yes, 0 things is one thing. Not more than that though.
Captainscarlet Wrote:To state that nothing exists, is a horribly incoherent. By definition nothing must be the absence of anything; since we have never observed that in the whole of reality we can at least state to a very high degree of probability that nothing is not a possible state. In much the same way, when the something cannot arise from nothing argument is tripped out, that falsely assumes that the universe at T0 was in a state of nothingness. But this seems a highly improbable state of affairs. It is perhaps more interesting that there is only a small surplus of matter over antimatter in our universe and when all energy and matter is totaled on both sides of the positive and negative divide, there is a lot less in our universe than we suppose or observe. So in some sense a small something can give rise to bigger set of +ve somethings and -ve somethings.
It is incoherent to state that a thing which exists... exists? 0.o
I agree that nothing is the absence of anything. And not having observed nothing within a place where there is not nothing means that it doesn't exist? I'll keep such "logic" in mind
I do not presume the universe to have *had* a "T0", and infact disbelieve all proposals that the 'Big Bang' was the actual "start" of the universe. Part of the process i could believe. Start? No.
And I would never make this "something cannot arise from nothing" argument... because nothing itself is something.
Only there is no negative state of existence. There is nonexistence, and existence. Antimatter is positive. Matter is positive. That these interact explosively does not modify their state of existence.
April 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 1:45 pm by Sarcasm.)
If nothing is everything then i can represent everything in my arguement about how i dont agree with this by writing nothing right? My explanation is below.
Alrite, there it is, did it make sense?
~ Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, give a man a religion and he'll die praying for a fish.
Chuck Wrote:I can't believe it took 3 pages and 25 posts spell out "mumbo jumbo"
Nobody said you had to read this thread?
It'll get 'worse' when doubtie finally gets here. Wonder what is taking him
Sarcasm Wrote:If nothing is everything then i can represent everything in my arguement about how i dont agree with this by writing nothing right? My explanation is below.
void Wrote:You should stop relying on intuitions, like, now...
This is where I disagree. Although I think it is best for humans to use reason and logic as much as possible, there are some events in one life where you dont have all of the variables in front of you, and using intuition in a quick fashion may save your life and others life.
Remember, we are humans, not Vulcans. You cannot deny the emotion and intuition. Why cant we be logical, and embrace our emotions? Why cant we have a strong will that knows when a good time for logic, and when a good time for passion is?
Why cant we be well rounded individuals, instead of denying our feelings, or letting them rule us?
Hm, this idea has been on my mind since i read it, i still dont agree with it really, but at the same time i dont know how to exactly explain why. But i guess i'll give this an actual attempt instead of my little joke in the first post.
Before i start though i want to make sure were on the same page when were using the terms 'Nothing' and 'Everything'. By 'Nothing' i mean nonexistence, no thing or not anything. And by 'Everything' i mean all things as a whole, or the total of all things. I'll just work out a few things that i saw kinda weird with the scenarios you can come up with if the statement 'Everything is Nothing' were true.
- Everything is Nothing (E = N)
- Everything is the total of all things (E = T)
- The total of all things is greater than one thing (T > 1)
- Everything is greater than one thing (E > 1)
- Nothing is less than one thing (N < 1)
- Everything is Nothing (E = N)
- Everything is less than one thing (E < 1)
- Everything is Everything, Therefore... (E > 1 = E < 1)
Contradiction?
~ Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, give a man a religion and he'll die praying for a fish.
void Wrote:You should stop relying on intuitions, like, now...
This is where I disagree. Although I think it is best for humans to use reason and logic as much as possible, there are some events in one life where you dont have all of the variables in front of you, and using intuition in a quick fashion may save your life and others life.
That deals with action, not analysis, so sure. When analyzing something you simply don't have the excuse to rely on intuitions alone, reason, logic, evidence, epistemology all need to be account for.
Quote:Remember, we are humans, not Vulcans. You cannot deny the emotion and intuition.
1. I m not denying them
2. They are not the same thing.
3. Rationality does not even imply a lack of emotions.
4. Removing intuitions in favor of reasoned beliefs is the core of rationality.
Quote: Why cant we be logical, and embrace our emotions?
We can, not always, sometimes our emotions are contrary to the facts then we are necessarily illogical.
Quote:Why cant we have a strong will that knows when a good time for logic, and when a good time for passion is?
You think discussing philosophy on a forum is good time for emotions? Put down the crack pipe Jerry... We are discussion philosophy, Intuitions about nothing have fuck all to do with it, emotions have NOTHING to do with it.
Emotions only tell you feel about a proposition, when you want to discuss the truth of the proposition emotions have no place in judging it.
Quote:Why cant we be well rounded individuals, instead of denying our feelings, or letting them rule us?
Did I say that??? No. You're being fail at reading comprehension lately. Intuitions tell you perceive a situation given emotions and pseudo-models, emotions tell you how you feel about a proposition. When you are trying to have a rational discussion of something these become biases, neither of them are in any way necessarily true so coming to conclusions based on them (as a judgement and not when they are the subject matter) is nonsensical.
And zero apples is also a thing. A thing that makes me hungry. And me no likey being hungry 
