Is it possible for Nothing to exist, even as a concept?

a reply to: Revolution9

I would say that it would not be logical to assume that infinities exist in nature until otherwise proven. Also everything doesn't infinitely reduce to something else. Once you get to a planck length you can't reduce anymore. Its like our pixel.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Very short OP, but I will be very active on the thread:

Is it possible for Nothing to exist, even as a concept?

what do ya think and be ready to defend cause I'll be playing devils advocate.

I'm saying "No" to it having an existence. Because "Nothing" is by definition "Non Existence".

In concept however I'd say "Yes" it must exist as a concept because we even have a word for it. If we have a word for something that doesn't actually exist then it exists in concept only.

In order for nothing to exist it must first be something. A concept is something. The word "nothing" is something. When we speak of "nothing", or God, we speak about the word and concept. That's it.

a reply to: Revolution9

I don't mean the physical process, I mean the effect of that process.

Neural synapses are not an image of a house that doesn't exist in any concrete form (yet), that image is not anything that can be "seen", only thought of. Thoughts are the immaterial result of material synapses firing in the brain. There is not literal wood and mortar inside of your brain when you think of a house, it is an abstraction, non-existant in any concrete way.

I understand what you're saying, but there is an extra layer underneath that I'm pointing out here. Thoughts are immaterial, they are not made up of any one thing, that house that you picture in your mind is not literally sitting inside your brain when you think of it.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

To not exist.

If I open a box that is labeled as having shoes in it but there are no shoes in it, does that specific box with shoes in it exist? No. This is of course conceptual so the concept of nothing most certainly does exist.

Do leprechauns exist? No, which means they are "nothing" or non-existent.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
In order for nothing to exist it must first be something. A concept is something. The word "nothing" is something. When we speak of "nothing", or God, we speak about the word and concept. That's it.

The concept is something, yes. But the concept of "nothing" is still just a concept. Being a concept doesn't make what the concept is about in to something. So "nothing" still doesn't exist even though the concept of nothing does exist.

a reply to: mOjOm

You say "what the word is about". What is the word about? What the word is about is the concept of nothing, which exists. What is the concept of nothing about? The concept of nothing is about the word nothing, which exists. What else beside the word and concept are you speaking about?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm only talking about the "concept" and the "word" for "nothing". Since "nothing" doesn't exist beyond those two references.

Now that I think about it, perhaps even the word and concept for "nothing" actually aren't references to "nothing" after all. Since what we think of as nothing is really just our incorrect notion of nothing, which is close enough for any practical or philosophical purpose.

So perhaps I might have to change my answer to, "Nothing" neither exists in reality nor in concept. However, we have a word and concept for something that we call "nothing", but it's really not that. It's just as close as we can get to it as an idea. But there isn't a "nothing" at all. Even conceptually as a true "nothing" isn't capable of being labeled or referenced at all.

Then again the above problem may also simply be one of language. Not quite sure yet.

Once you know, you cannot unknow. So maybe if I had never known that anything existed, but it is too late for that now.

I think "Nothing" by definition cannot exist. It's essential quality is nonexistence. In other words, as soon as it exists, it ceases to be "Nothing".

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I would argue that existence itself isn't possible without something, so if there is nothing, there is also no existence.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'm saying "No" to it having an existence. Because "Nothing" is by definition "Non Existence".

So your definition of nothing is non-existence. Does that extend to every possible scenario? What if I said "she is tying a non-existent shoe-lace." But that non-existent shoelace would still be an idea which though it is abstract it is still something.

In concept however I'd say "Yes" it must exist as a concept because we even have a word for it. If we have a word for something that doesn't actually exist then it exists in concept only.

That is my current position, but my real question here are our definitions of nothing logically valid and sound definitions.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ok now this I can agree with. I can agree that non-existence correlates with the idea of no thing, but does it effectively define the word?

That which is often perceived as ''nothing'' is often far from it, it is dependent on the level of perception and how it is quantified.

Quantum physics tells that there is no such thing as ''nothing'', there is dark matter and there is no such thing as solid as everything exists at an energy level and all the Universe as is known contains energy or is subject to energy.

It is where science meets religion in that everything is energy. The Buddhist / Krsna concept of the Absolute Truth is the description of the ultimate truth and reality, that all is energy and all is subject to the infinite energy of the Universe and that Consciousness is the awareness of such all pervasive energy.

www.collective-evolution.com...

Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

Therefore, if we really want to observe ourselves and find out what we are, we are really beings of energy and vibration, radiating our own unique energy signature -this is fact and is what quantum physics has shown us time and time again.

We are much more than what we perceive ourselves to be, and it’s time we begin to see ourselves in that light. If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons.

These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void.

The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual” (1) – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University (quote taken from “the mental universe)

www.krishna.com...

Absolute Truth refers to a reality which doesn't change over time. Absolute means all other truths are relative to it, or depend on it. When we talk about God, or Krishna, we're talking about the Absolute Truth.

The Absolute Truth is the source of everything, the ultimate cause of all causes. In Sanskrit, it is also called satyam param, the highest truth.

This supreme truth can be perceived in three features—as Brahman, all-pervading, impersonal oneness, as Paramatma, the manifestation of God within the heart of every being, and as Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These three are the same one truth, understood from increasingly advanced levels of realization.

In the beginning the Absolute appears impersonal. With more advancement, the Supreme is perceived within one's own heart and the hearts of others. The highest realization is to see the Supreme Truth as the Supreme Person, who is complete in wealth, power, fame, beauty, knowledge, and renunciation. The Bhagavad-gita, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, and other Vedic literatures identify this Supreme Personality of Godhead as Krishna.

To anyone unfamiliar with the concept, it may be difficult to grasp how a single person can contain or "be" all of reality: this world is full of relative truths, and Krishna is a different kind of person than we may be used to thinking about.

Here’s an example of a "non-absolute," or relative truth: "The sky is blue."

That may be true—if it’s daytime and there aren’t any clouds—but the sky won’t be the same color tonight and may not be the same color tomorrow. And even if it’s blue here, it’s not blue everywhere. That statement is true, then, in a relative way—relative to time and space. There are unlimited relative truths, but there is only one Absolute Truth. That’s why we capitalize the "A" and the "T."

Also, it isn’t possible to meditate on relative truths forever. The most pleasant "truths"—if they’re not absolute—either stop being true, or you get sick of them after a while. But meditating on the Absolute Truth can make anyone fearless, ecstatic, and always eager for more. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita:

"The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me."

(Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 10.9)

Here's one way Srila Prabhupada deals with this topic, from his commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam:

"Everyone is searching after the truth. That is the philosophical way of life. The demigods give information that the Supreme Absolute Truth is Krishna. One who becomes fully Krishna conscious can attain the Absolute Truth. Krishna is the Absolute Truth.

"Relative truth is not truth in all the three phases of eternal time. Time is divided into past, present and future. Krishna is Truth always, past, present and future. In the material world, everything is being controlled by supreme time, in the course of past, present and future. But before the creation, Krishna was existing, and when there is creation, everything is resting in Krishna, and when this creation is finished, Krishna will remain. Therefore, He is Absolute Truth in all circumstances.

"If there is any truth within this material world, it emanates from the Supreme Truth, Krishna. If there is any opulence within this material world, the cause of the opulence is Krishna. If there is any reputation within this material world, the cause of the reputation is Krishna. If there is any strength within this material world, the cause of such strength is Krishna. If there is any wisdom and education within this material world, the cause of such wisdom and education is Krishna. Therefore Krishna is the source of all relative truths."

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Very short OP, but I will be very active on the thread:

Is it possible for Nothing to exist, even as a concept?

Since you made your OP so short, I'll make answer short, too.

Nothing is a subset of something.

a reply to: windword

Then i think you need to define Nothing, because from my perspective it is the direct opposite of something.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Do leprechauns exist? No, which means they are "nothing" or non-existent.

I mean if your definition of nothing is non-existent, then that makes sense but if nothing is the absence of all things, a leprechauns existence would not take away from the fact that a leprechaun is defined as a small, mischievous sprite. That is something that does not exist, but just because it is nonexistent doesn't mean it is not something.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ok now this I can agree with. I can agree that non-existence correlates with the idea of no thing, but does it effectively define the word?

I would think that both "nothing" and "existence" are absolutes, so if either one is accurately 'happening,' then the other doesn't matter--it's a symbiotic relationship, in that sense.

If there is nothing, then there is no existence. If there is existence, then there is something.

My opinion.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Then i think you need to define Nothing, because from my perspective it is the direct opposite of something.

I said that "Nothing is the subset of something". It's not "nothing" that I need to define, it's the something. If we're talking apples, for example, having 0 apples is a subset of any number (a variable) of apples.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well said sir.