Does "nothingness" exist?

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

It's actually just "a state of being" that is all that is trying to be reached.....

IMO, 'nothingness' is just that...simply a state of being...albeit a state that isn't subject to perception....

Essentially just a state of mind then, not in any sense absolute nothingness as a concept I thought we were discussing earlier.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

It's actually just "a state of being" that is all that is trying to be reached.....

IMO, 'nothingness' is just that...simply a state of being...albeit a state that isn't subject to perception....

Essentially just a state of mind then, not in any sense absolute nothingness as a concept I thought we were discussing earlier.

If you want to understand absolute nothingness simply ponder A ≠ A. That is the truest form of nothing we'll likely ever be able to conceive.

With everything comes nothing !

Misty dawn's post resonates with me. Also, let me forewarn you that this post operates to evoke reflection, somewhat like an unfolding crude flower; but I do believe you will get something out of it.

It is my view that both positive and negative are mere rigid, highly focused flavors of something, and not something in and of itself. Nothing, in my view, is a state existing outside of things, the material world. This, in and of itself, can at least be described as some thing, as it can be viewed as merely a creative/destructive principle existing beyond, transcending the physical/objective world. When I view nothing in an even less constrained way, as more of the state of NO, of a sort of total lights out, it can still be viewed as a something of sorts. This something could be seen as the will exerting itself on all of its contained systems, aware of all of the systems inner workings and relationships. This is because this NO thing is that which is beyond our understandings. We can only stand with it, not under it.

We can only conceive of "something" in my view, as we are alive. Anything regarded as nothing is merely an absence of a conception, and as such cannot be communicated. People are always arguing for something, never for nothing. Nothing is that which exists beyond duality, but when perceived, becomes something yet again. Our labeling of things as nothing is, I think, a reflection of our binary nature which tends to view things as they are not. Nothingness is death. This is just the observer trying to conceive of a state opposite to itself. Oftentimes, the observer gets confused and identifies with the opposite of itself, sadly enough.

In the universe we observe there is no such thing as nothing other than the value 0.

The void has vacuum energy. If we could some how move beyond our universe into the theorized "hyperspace" im sure it to would have some type of energy aswell.

The only objective nothing imo is the lack of something. The only real nothing is not finding what your looking for in a specific space. An example would be trying to measure the current in a circuit without a power supply. You would find nothing or no current. It still has the potential to be there however so nothing is really a open potential for occurence. . . .or something

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to witness it, does it make a sound? Schrodingers Cat is a way to explain Nothingness.

Unless observed, an event does not necessarily happen. Its in a State of Nothing, its existence is nothing, nada, didnt happen. Because there was no observer. Does observer mean a being with awareness? i do not think so, a Cat could be the observer, and how do we know Cats dont have self awareness? The cats state of consciousness is unknown to us? So we say it does not have awareness, again, we relegate the idea of Nothing upon this poor feline.

*Edit to add- What i mean by this is that Positve and negative states are all relative, as the cat inside the box (schrodingers cat) would be observing itself therefore it would be "Positive" while those outside the box, (evil men in lab coats) do not know what state the cat is in, if the cat is even in thebox at all, which is "Negative". The same event is both negative and positive.-*

Wow, is it just me, or have i posted another absurd reply?

To answer the question you posed to me Op, no i do not think Negative and Positive are constants, they seem to be intertwined within relativity, as i believe almost everything is. Thus is achieved a true balance, for if everyones positives and negatives were the same, then everyone would be very much the same. And that would suck. Even though almost everyone is the same, there is some who are extremely different. And i dont mean this guy here likes chips with dip, whilke that guy likes ketchup with his chips.

As far as im concerned, there hasnt been what the layman terms as NOTHING since before the existence of the Universe, and even then we cant be sure, as we were not there before then.

If a tree falls in the woods and no beings are around, does it make a sound?

Love and Peace





[edit on 23-12-2009 by M157yD4wn]

If it's not too late, I would like to offer my own thoughts on the subject of this thread.

There are two basic considerations to clarify, before we can embark on the central question of 'nothingness'.

One is semantic confusion on how 'nothingness' is to be conceptualized. I suggest usage of 'relative nothingness' and 'absolute nothingness'. Relative nothingness can be ascribed to phenomena outside human perception and conception. Such relative nothingness can be hitherho unknown aspects of 'natural laws' (phenomena manifesting inside and/or governing cosmos), which we eventually may be able to classify as 'something'.

Another variety of relative nothingness could be trans-cosmic. A situation where the 'natural laws' in cosmos are non-existing.

This possibility is epistemological in character.

Evaluation of a trans-cosmic nothingness is difficult, as trans-cosmic nothingness in whatever form it has, is outside STANDARD methods for observation, experimentation and pragmatism. I have on this thread noticed opinions based on reductionist materialism-science ('scientism'), and I have objections to this. First of all 'scientism' has DEFINED trans-cosmos as ABSOLUTE nothingness. And as such not available for any scientific scrutiny. The opinion of your greengrocer and most religious doctrines would be as valid as those of 'scientism' on this subject. Besides is 'scientism' per se a questionable perspective in any case. Faster-than-light information, Shroedinger's cat implying polarization (subject/object) for cosmos, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle etc make the usefulness of 'scientism' limited.

If trans-cosmic RELATIVE nothingness is considered an option, I suggest it can be conceptualized as a 'field', containing 'strange' qualities of its own. More about this later, if there are responses to this post.

I just want to draw attention to one of the most profound observations ever made: Samsara (something)=Nirvana (nothing). But PLEASE, disregard new-age interpretations of this, these interpretations are in my opinion highly debatable.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by bogomil]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by bogomil]

I've been watching Through the Wormhole episode about "Nothing". Nothing is a pretty interesting concept. How can something come from nothing? Wouldn't there have been something all along?

Originally posted by game over man
I've been watching Through the Wormhole episode about "Nothing". Nothing is a pretty interesting concept. How can something come from nothing? Wouldn't there have been something all along?

There has always been Something all along, as I keep say The One, is that wich has always been and will always be. Scary Huh!
I would dwell on this to long or you might end up like me.

From previous, The Nothing is neither large nor small.

So just how big is the Noting, it's not.

A lot of that Wormhole stuff, I don't personally agree with, like dark energy, or dark matter. I myself feel dark matter is just gravity distorted, by black hole gravity waves for one.
As for dark energy they , said well the Universe should be slowing down by now, but in the view of cosmic time the event the bang has just occurred, you will have to give it at least, in my view 12 Trillion years for it to stop expansion.