Philosophy Discussion Forums

To re-introduce this often forgotten topic, there are many practical benefits from the realization that 'nothing' is a label and nothing more. Many people are needlessly pre-occupied with the subject of death - they see 'nothingness' as something cold, dark, 'something'.

From the very large in terms of the universe/multiverse (there was never nothing, only a matter of scale however small) to our own existence, life - and nothing outside of this experience. There is no such thing as death, as this is 'not-life', which is nothing. The implications for this truth on a human life are vast; when you 'die' the universe dies with you - but there is no such thing as nothing, the universe must exist, your universe. 'Time' (our lifespan) loops back to the beginning of 'the' universe (such as space-time loops) and you live the same life again, in an eternal loop of somethingness. Did I just make up a word?? Have a nice life!

This is a metaphysics question and as I said before that there are 4 kinds of possibilities:

1. Matter exists while the mind does not exist. 2. The mind exists while the matter does not exist. 3. Both matter and mind exist. 4. Neither mind nor matter exist.

Metaphysically, I feel maybe I can never be able to be certain which of the above is correct. And if there is a person thinks he knows which one is right, he may be wrong, because if you are a realist, I will ask: "How are you so sure that something must exist rather than nothing?"

If you are a nihilist, I will ask: "How are you so sure that nothing can exist?" If you are an idealist, I will also question you by asking: "Can you prove that the physical world is not there?" Can you be certain that what you see justify the existence of a material world?

So, I feel maybe we can never understand the answer to the very metaphysical question and one may ask: Is there a use of asking such a question?

If you consider everything nothing, then you are on track with science; science likes to know everything as being nothing at all. All I know amounts to not knowing all I know, but nothing. Science; accurate observation, mixed with mysticism born out of imagination, is nothing more. If you believe. I am not one to believe, neither is science. When science says it understands me, you can be sure that I had (nothing) to do with it. "Nobody dose it better"

I see nothingness as a potential state of unbeing. Of course these is due to my human consciousness but that is all I have to work with. Of course our consciousness could pop out in some anti matter realm but it does me know good to be preoccupied with the unknown when I am trying to figure out how to get by while I exist in this time.

I guess an individual devoted to the works of wisdom is a nobody, someone can calls this state of unawareness or even non being. Compare his view as a telescope on the moon staring down on the earth from the moon.

'Nothing' has been intriguing for me for quite a while. Usually my approach to such problems centers on the way language has interfered with intimacy with a concept's meaning. (This is especially true with ethics.) I think it is important to realize the problem that arises when we discuss any 'real' thing. Instanty we are thrown off by the question of whether we can ever get to the thing and escape the language dynamics that constitute meaning. But let's say, notwithstanding the strong claims that language pretty much owns meaning and try as you may you can never step out of the conditions of meaning making to affirm something independently, that when I stand in the middle of an experience of, say, being assaulted with a baseball bat, I have an ability to acknowledge the existential end of that the event that is clear and unquestioned. The first thing I notice is that I am facing something that is not language. The world, as Sartre once said, is not language. So when we think about it, face it bodily , we have to understand that what may have a logical abstract property, in this case the empty set or the numerical designation '0', for examples, should not be conflated with the existential counterpart. I know that 5-5=0; but this '0' is an abstraction and has no more actual existence than any other nominal designation. But here is the point: In the abstract world there are lots and lots of meaningless 'nothings' ; they are all just logical functions. Put it in Kant's language: concepts without intuitions are empty. However, do we want to make this hold for another vastly different kind of nothingness: existential nothngness?! Clearly they are not the same. In a very real sense, existential nothingness IS, where abstract nothingness is not. Of course, this glosses over debate on realism vs. nominalism. (Plato thought, of course, that concepts are more real than the bodily real things we encounter. Let's forget him for now.) Thus, I am in awe of nothingness in the in-your-face apriori form of intuition sense. But I wil take this a step beyond Kant; for what is intuited as space is a quesioned implicitly begged: where is that space? No: for me the buck stops at the immediacy of extending my arm through this mysterious medium. Where that is I haven't a clue. But I know it is not nothing in the abstract sense.

Alexmaestro100 wrote: 'Time' (our lifespan) loops back to the beginning of 'the' universe (such as space-time loops) and you live the same life again, in an eternal loop of somethingness.

So after I die, I have to wait 13 billion years to live again? What a jip! Though I guess it will be cool to watch it all unfold.

IMO, within the scientific framework of truth, it is assumed (implicitly if not explicit) there is always 'something' to be discovered and to be substantiated with observation and empirical evidence. As such the concept of absolute 'nothing' is not valid within the scientific framework.

Nevertheless there are scientists who delve into the concept of 'nothing' re how the universe came about. In this case, these scientists are actually wearing their philosophy hat, not their scientist hat. There is of course room for a philosophical discussion of 'nothing' from the espistemological and ontological perspective.

Yes,I have heard csomologists talk about conditions prior to the big bang and they get all excited. I think they are right. I can think of the strangest problematic right off the bat: there is the space in my head (Kant's space), Einstein's space/time; then there is "where" this space/time....well....where it is. After all, when the big bang banged, it had to bang in to some place, righ? All so beyond common sense. But it is here, right here where I put my cup that is where the mystery is. Enough to make you a mystic.

Maybe it was a place like this, after all the suns had died, but with a little less umph from the previous bang, so everything came back together, ultra-mega-super black hole was born, vibrated for an instant, then went... you know, bang.