Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Platos stepchild]

So, can nothing really exist, alongside something? Obviously, as the previous sentence, clearly shows.

[Atreyu]

Can nothingness be reached? If I encounter nothingness in space, would it not be space that tells me where it is? Nothingness will always have a location if present in space. Where is there no space? It seems only NOTHINGNESS could “exist” for it to be truly nothing for these reasons. Nothingness appears to become a substance as soon as “something” exists, because something may force it into a location; and because nothingness would have to exert an infinite force to prevent itself from absorbing normal time and space; the force would give it substance, and in turn it would become something. It would also produce residual after effects, like massive gravimetric forces, that could even off set the expansion of space itself. Space is based on a vacuum concept, thus nothing will be a greater vacuum, making space more solid than itself. This could cause nothing to move away at trans warp speeds to escape normal space, until it ends up in an environment that is free of ALL itself. Thus nothing cannot exist in the same universe/dimension than us; if it does, it becomes something, and it may attempt to escape the universe if it’s an absolute state; or, if it’s not an absolute state, the force which holds it together may collapse, much like a deep sea creature being brought up from the depths. Depending on what kind of power was required to keep it in a state of nothingness, it could be cataclysmic when its fails to maintain its state.

A question, if “nothingness” attempts to escape the universe when exposed to normal space, can it be used under controlled conditions to create faster than light speed propulsion?

I believe your philosophy has gotten a bit out of control. Because before positing about whether or not "nothing can exist alongside something" we first must ask "Can/does nothing exist?" in the first place. Or, in other words, is there really such a thing as a true vacuum in the Universe? Or do vacuums only exist theoretically? Until we have answered this question it's really pointless to ask more particular questions about Nothingness. For if Nothingness can only exist as an idea, as a concept, then naturally it can not and does not exist at all, regardless of whether it is a singularity or if it also exists along with "something else".

And there is also another salient point behind your idea which also must be addressed first, which I just hinted at in the last paragraph by ending it with "something else". And it is this: Does it even make sense to say that Nothing "exists"? Is this a valid cognitive construct? Does not "existence" imply Something versus Nothing? So there is already a fundamental structural flaw in the way the question is being posited. Nothing cannot exist because existence itself implies something.

[Sy Borg]

Nothing appears to be a limited construct, eg. no apples in the basket, but as far as we know there has always been something - the big bang and its subsequent development. Presumably there was something before the BB to make it happen, some say in dimensions of existence we can't yet perceive.

The areas we once considered to be nothing, a complete vacuum, are in fact a lively soup of quantum particles, and arguably that has always been the case.

[Platos stepchild]

I believe the very nature of nothingness precludes any attempt to detect, or verify it. At best, nothingness is an untestable hypothesis; and, at worst, it's a delusion. But, somehow the allure of a truly radical void continues to tease the imagination. Maybe it's as simple as wondering what the back-of-your-head looks like. So, you spin, and spin around, in front of your mirror, trying to glimpse what cannot be glimpsed. Or, maybe nothingness is how we conceptualize death. Could Buddhism be right, after all?

Such speculations, though are inherently absurd. Nothingness cannot be known, because it has no "knowable" signature properties, to check for. It's therefore "known-of", beyond any refutation, yet forever unknowable. Is that why it evokes a visceral dread, within us? Nothingness is the ultimate sleight-of-hand; it raises the stark possibility of creatio ex nihilo (creation from out of nothing). Since we can't "detect" nothingness, whose to say we're not surrounded, by it? In that case, we'd more nearly not exist. (This is, in fact how the world, actually is. After all, ordinary matter is mostly "empty" space).

Maybe that's it: we've intuited the truth, that we're mostly "not here". That is pretty disconcerting. Although I have no way of knowing, just how, I personally believe that "nothingness" is the primal womb, from which reality springs. The "flip-side" of that belief, however is that "nothingness" is also the primal stomach, in which we are again "unmade". Claiming the ultimate meaning, to existence is tantamount to nihilism, isn't just "disconcerting", it's the despair of knowing that even the best, of life is fleeting. But, for me, the only thing scarier than believing nothingness might exist alongside the world, is believing that it doesn't. How banal existence, would seem, without dreading the nothingness hanging in the counterbalance.

[Sy Borg]

But, for me, the only thing scarier than believing nothingness might exist alongside the world, is believing that it doesn't. How banal existence, would seem, without dreading the nothingness hanging in the counterbalance.

I think the only way that existence and reality could be considered banal in any way would be if humans were found to be the only intelligent life to live or ever live in the universe, scum on the existential shower curtain soon to be scrubbed off.

Thankfully, that is highly unlikely.

[Platos stepchild]

I've already explained why I believe nothingness can never be detected, and therefore verified. Let's suppose, now however, that a zone-of-nothingness actually does exist. What, then stands between the world and the "zone"? Clearly, whatever it is, it cannot be either one, or the other. So, positing a zone-of-nothingness requires us to also posit "something" other than existence, and nothingness. But, what might this third-state be? A second, perhaps more fundamental question is why should nature have this "triad" structure, in the first place. My "point" is basically this: by attributing an ontological basis, to nothingness, we've opened ourselves up to some hard questions, which must be squarely addressed. How ought we, then to go about doing this?

[Sy Borg]

Let's suppose, now however, that a zone-of-nothingness actually does exist.

I would call that a zone of low energy concentration; there is always something. Given that high energy zones expand into lower energy zones, if a theoretical zone of complete nothingness appeared it would be immediately filled with whatever is around it.

[Atreyu]

Maybe that's it: we've intuited the truth, that we're mostly "not here". That is pretty disconcerting.

That is an interesting idea --- that we are "mostly not here" --- but to me, it is only interesting if taken psychologically. If taken literally (absolutely, "physically"), then I'd argue it's pretty nonsensical. Perhaps you could elaborate more on that idea --- that we are "mostly not here".

Although I have no way of knowing, just how, I personally believe that "nothingness" is the primal womb, from which reality springs. The "flip-side" of that belief, however is that "nothingness" is also the primal stomach, in which we are again "unmade".

I myself strongly oppose such a view. To me, it's most unreasonable to posit that anything can come from absolute Nothingness, or even to assert that something that really exists could be as fleeting and temporal as our daily lives suggest it is.

[Platos stepchild]

Plato's stepchild wrote: "Let's suppose, now however, that a zone-of-nothingness actually does exist".


"I would call that a zone of low energy concentration; there is always something. Given that high energy zones expand into lower energy zones, if a theoretical zone of complete nothingness appeared it would be immediately filled with whatever is around it".

Yes; I agree: of course "there's always something". The supposition that there's not, however is what defines true nothingness. (Which, is defined as the absence of any, and all reference points, and scaling models; i.e., no internal structure). My point was simply that, by positing such "nothingness", we'll encounter certain dilemmas which undermine our "supposition". And, as far as claiming that "high energy zones expand into lower energy zones", that's not generally true, at least not in so-called turbulent systems. And, inasmuch as "linear systems" are the exception in nature, rather than the rule, we must assume that it's generally not the case that "low energy zones" are unstable.

OK; all we know, so far is that, if a "low energy zone" does form, it'll likely be stable. But, there's no guarantee it'll ever form, in the first place. That, however isn't really the issue. What is the issue, is the consequences of asserting that, if "low energy zones" actually are stable, a "third-state" must therefore exist, insulating existence from nothingness. That's because, without such a barrier, existence would immediately "collapse", into nothingness. Furthermore, this "third-state" cannot be a simple homogeneity. The "stuff" comprising it would need to be "metastable" (otherwise, it too, would collapse).

This "metastability" thus allows the third-state, acting as the barrier between existence, and nothingness, to interact with both, yet without, itself undergoing any "chemical" changes. How does all this workout in reality, though? This is but one of the "dilemmas", accruing to the assumption that nothingness has an ontological basis. Of course, the "nothingness" of theoretical physics is usually something like, say a "quantum foam". But, unlike "true nothingness", it has a structure, albeit an exotic one. It is, however nevertheless possible to glean insights into nothingness, through using an "equivalence algorithm".

Let's stipulate there's a non-empty set, call it S, of "all-which-is-unknowable". Furthermore, let's stipulate that nothingness is "equivalent" to "S". We know, ala' Kurt Godal that "S" will always be "non-empty". We, therefore infer that "nothingness" is basically inert, and hence eternal. Yet, existence is anything but; it's always in flux, and never, ever permanent. This tells us that our posited "third-state", somehow is "commensurable", with that which shouldn't be. Here is exactly why I don't believe that nothingness can ever be ontologically grounded. There are just too many dilemmas, too many hurdles to jump through, for that to be true. So, what then, is nothingness? Well, I suggest it's a grammatical artifact, a syntactical ghost, with no substance .

[Bronxguy]

Well, if nothing exists alongside something, what is it that separates the nothing from the something? If the separating "thing" is nothing, then the alongside-ing nothing will be identical with the posited something. The posited something will earn the status of nothing, and thus cannot support the alongside-ness of anything, including nothing. If the separating "thing" is something, then it cannot be the case that nothing exists alongside the posited something, since a something intervenes. Ergo, it is not the case that nothing can exist alongside something.

[Misty]

Please tell me how nothing can be said to exist? Nothing would have to be something in order to be able to exist. If nothing is something then it is not nothing.


PARAGRAPH OF NOTHING =







Thanks for reading, Misty

[Alec Smart]

A question, if “nothingness” attempts to escape the universe when exposed to normal space, can it be used under controlled conditions to create faster than light speed propulsion?

Harnessing nothing doesn't sound like too difficult a task but I'm doubtful about it's potential as a means of transport.

[Granth]

You are looking at nothing right now. You assume it is something. This is the illusion-making power of assumption. Of mind stuff.

[Atreyu]

Please tell me how nothing can be said to exist? Nothing would have to be something in order to be able to exist. If nothing is something then it is not nothing.

The key would be a 'n' versus a 'N'. 'nothing' as a concept cannot exist as a thing. 'nothing' with a small 'n' means it is only an idea, and has no actual existence in the real world. Ideas normally are differentiated between actual things which "really" exist outside of ourselves.

However, 'Nothing' is a different concept than just 'nothing'. In and of itself it is just another concept, but in this case, by using caps, we have a concept of a thing. Here, we're not just imaging nothing existing, we are imagining Something "existing", which conceptually is equivalent to nothing. For all practical purposes we have nothing, but in this case it is also somehow a "Thing" as well. It's some unknown Thing that just happens to manifest itself to us as absolutely nothing at all, i.e. the concept that "Nothing exists" is basically an assertion that there is something really existing in the Universe that we could never have any evidence of.

And the 'N' also suggests that this something we cannot know is actually a Higher Consciousness or Mind (or actually, the absence of one, or the potential for one to exist). As if "Nothing" was a sort of container to be filled by a future Mind or future Thoughts. So saying "Nothing exists" is another way of saying that all awareness/mind/thought is limited, that all minds have boundaries, even God's, for the Mind cannot know its own container. To know its own container would entail the Mind expanding outside of that very container to see it, which would merely imply a new container outside the boundaries of the old one. And we could repeat this process ad infinitum. Even an expanding Mind/Awareness has its limits/boundaries, even if only in the moment, i.e. a "container". So in other words, even a Mind knowing more and more and more, and particularly a Mind which is knowing more and more and more, also knows that there is always more to know. And since there will always be more to know, more to learn, more to see, then that means that there will always be something Unknowable, unseeable, beyond it forever, for infinity will never be reached. There will always be "Something" out there it will never reach (the "Nothing").

"Nothing" is basically a description of the Unknowable. The "Nothing" is the part of the Universe that really exists but which nothing whatever (not even "God") could be aware of. It's something really existing but which is completely, and always has been, and always will be, outside the boundaries of all Awareness. No entity has ever seen it, nor will one ever see it, but nonetheless our reason tells us that it must exist, otherwise we would have to assume that everything that exists in the Universe could be manifest to us, i.e. that it is impossible that anything that actually exists could not somehow be perceived by some conscious entity.

I would appeal to you that this assumption is quite false. Surely it might be possible that something could really exist and yet not be perceivable by any sentient being. And if so, then surely such things probably exist. For even God Himself might ponder that something else exists besides Himself, after all, how would God Himself know that his own awareness is infinite? God Himself could not say Himself whether or not his awareness actually saw It All, because He would have no reference points to know whether everything He was seeing was "All" or just "All He could see". And if you try to imagine what conclusion God would draw for Himself concerning this question, perhaps you might agree with me that "the Nothing" must exist (Void).....

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Can nothingness be reached? If I encounter nothingness in space, would it not be space that tells me where it is? Nothingness will always have a location if present in space. Where is there no space? It seems only NOTHINGNESS could “exist” for it to be truly nothing for these reasons. Nothingness appears to become a substance as soon as “something” exists, because something may force it into a location;

At that point, nothingness would not be nothingness. In a sense, nothingness is a paradox, and yet it doesn't need to be. You are thinking of nothingness as a potentiality in this case, and potentialities are not equivalent to non-existence. Nothingness, in your interpretation (or lack thereof) is a conceptual, abstract "space" of possibility - a "location" that contains no perceptual objects, therefore can be filled with them. In a sense, nothingness is only a concept and not a "real" thing. So, to answer your question, no - nothingness cannot be reached. As soon as one applies any property, the recipient is considered to be a thing, for only things have properties.

Moving on, nothingness doesn't occupy space, nor is it a space in and of itself. Space, as we have theorized, is not even emptiness as postulated by Newton and others before him. A stage (what Newton equated physical space to) is a thing with properties, but no action. Space, it would seem, is an object, but it is not a subject. The things that fill space - matter and energy - are subjects which we observe. Nothingness, as you are asking about, is neither object nor subject, but rather a lack of both. It stands to reason, then, that nothingness is only an abstract concept. Nothingness is paradoxically something we need to fill with objects, and something we cannot fill. We may fill space, but not nothingness.

-- Updated January 13th, 2016, 9:18 pm to add the following --

Can nothingness be reached? If I encounter nothingness in space, would it not be space that tells me where it is? Nothingness will always have a location if present in space. Where is there no space? It seems only NOTHINGNESS could “exist” for it to be truly nothing for these reasons. Nothingness appears to become a substance as soon as “something” exists, because something may force it into a location;

At that point, nothingness would not be nothingness. In a sense, nothingness is a paradox, and yet it doesn't need to be. You are thinking of nothingness as a potentiality in this case, and potentialities are not equivalent to non-existence. Nothingness, in your interpretation (or lack thereof) is a conceptual, abstract "space" of possibility - a "location" that contains no perceptual objects, therefore can be filled with them. In a sense, nothingness is only a concept and not a "real" thing. So, to answer your question, no - nothingness cannot be reached. As soon as one applies any property, the recipient is considered to be a thing, for only things have properties.

Moving on, nothingness doesn't occupy space, nor is it a space in and of itself. Space, as we have theorized, is not even emptiness as postulated by Newton and others before him. A stage (what Newton equated physical space to) is a thing with properties, but no action. Space, it would seem, is an object, but it is not a subject. The things that fill space - matter and energy - are subjects which we observe. Nothingness, as you are asking about, is neither object nor subject, but rather a lack of both. It stands to reason, then, that nothingness is only an abstract concept. Nothingness is paradoxically something we need to fill with objects, and something we cannot fill. We may fill space, but not nothingness.

My apologies if this had some contradictions or minor grammatical errors. I wrote this as I was thinking through it.