Trying to conceptualize nothingness. Need Help!

reply to post by ALLis0NE

There is no such thing as nothingness.

no such thing as nothingness.

no thing as nothingness.

no thing as no thing

Have you not contradicted yourself?

For "nothing" to exist, "something" would have to exist along side it.
You can't have 0 unless 1 exists.

Why?

How many duekmas do you have? None, right? Does that imply that there is at least one duekma in existence? Really? I just made the word up.

I have "Nothing" to offer you.

You need to read "The Book of Nothing; Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe" by John D Barrow. The entire book is about nothing; the mathematical concept of null and the origins of the number zero (both as a numeric place holder and as an expression of a null value). There is also a literary approach to nothingness, a philosphical analysis, and finally, a scientific view of nothing. What is it? Does it exist? This book was very interesting to me. I think you will like it as well.

reply to post by Maddogkull

Now after we die, we do not know what comes after death. For some we say nothing exists.

I also wanted to comment on the initial portion of the OP. I'll go with the two subjects that would best put this into comparable opposites.

Christianity: after death, and if you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, you go to Heaven for an eternity, otherwise, you're doomed to an eternity in Hell, in a nutshell of course.

Atheism: after death, there is "nothing", in a nutshell of course.

So in regards to the Atheist's view, "nothing" or "non-existent" as it is defined, could in of itself, be considerably comparable to Heaven, in that if one's view of life was negative, then in death they would no longer be subjected to said negativity, therefore death would be a form of peace.

On the other hand, if one's view of life was positive, death and the "nothingness" that would ensue thereafter, could in of itself, be considerably comparable to Hell in the same notion.

In that respect Christians and Atheists view of the hereafter are not too dissimilar.

*edit for luster

[edit on 3/17/2010 by UberL33t]

Originally posted by LordBucket
Have you not contradicted yourself?

Nope, that is semantics.

Saying there is "no such thing" is a figure of speech. I should have said, "the concept of nothingness is an illusion".

For "nothingness" to exist there must be "something" to remove so that you get "nothingness".

If "something" exists, then "nothingness" doesn't exist and is only an illusion or a concept created by man.

Since "something" exists and has always existed since the beginning of man, that means "nothingness" IS actually man made, and has never been proven to exist.

However, the concept of "nothingness" MUST exist in some form (such as an illusion or other non-real form like an idea or theory) in order for the concept and reality of "something" to exist.

Originally posted by LordBucket

For "nothing" to exist, "something" would have to exist along side it.
You can't have 0 unless 1 exists.

Why?

How many duekmas do you have? None, right? Does that imply that there is at least one duekma in existence? Really? I just made the word up.

Yes, really....

You had to "make up" the word duekmas before you asked me if I had one..... So you created "something" in order to ask me if I had "nothing"

You created 1 in order to ask if I have 0. Hence the reason I said 0 can't exist unless you have 1.

The duekmas and "nothingness" are both made up concepts.


[edit on 17-3-2010 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I'd like to chime in here if I may.

You had to "make up" the word duekmas before you asked me if I had one..... So you created "something" in order to ask me if I had "nothing"

What then was the status of said duekmas before it was a "made up" "something"?

I would concur that the duekmas is indeed now a "1" "something", as you pointed out. However, yesterday, the duekmas was in fact "0" "nothing/non-existent" per your notion that "0" is "nothing". It was absolutely not a "1" "something" until a few posts ago. We can clearly see how this "0" "nothing" achieved it's "1" "something" by your quote above.

Since "something" exists and has always existed since the beginning of man, that means "nothingness" IS actually man made

Your argument is that "1" "something" has always existed and "0" "nothing" is an illusion that is man made.

With that notion, a deukmas has always existed since the beginning of man.
Right?

So what about before man existed, did the deukmas also exist and thus has always existed?

*edit for luster

[edit on 3/17/2010 by UberL33t]

Originally posted by UberL33t
What then was the status of said duekmas before it was a "made up" "something"?

I would concur that the duekmas is indeed now a "1" "something", as you pointed out. However, yesterday, the duekmas was in fact "0" "nothing/non-existent" per your notion that "0" is "nothing". It was absolutely not a "1" "something" until a few posts ago. We can clearly see how this "0" "nothing" achieved it's "1" "something" by your quote above.

Duekmas has always existed, it was just in a different form. Duekmas is a small part of its creator, LordBucket. The creator took a piece of him/her self (subconscious thoughts, ideas, opinions, past events, etc.), and gave it a name, "duekmas". The creator was 1, and made another 1 (duekmas). There was never a 0.

All things come from one. All things are a small fraction of one.

Originally posted by UberL33t
Your argument is that "1" "something" has always existed and "0" "nothing" is an illusion that is man made.

With that notion, a deukmas has always existed since the beginning of man.
Right?

Exactly right....

Originally posted by UberL33t
So what about before man existed, did the deukmas also exist and thus has always existed?

Yes, always existed in one form or another. You see the universe (1) took a small piece of itself and made LordBucket and all his/her family (1). Then LordBucket took a part of him/her self to create duekmas (1). There was never a (0), and technically duekmas has always existed just as a different form.

Man came from one. So did all matter, all energy, everything that exists and everything that will ever exist.

Even if you believe in the "empty universe" theory of there being "nothingness" before a Big Bang happened and created everything... it is still true that "nothingness" is the incorrect term for it because it will always be and has always been "something". There was never nothing.

reply to post by ALLis0NE

ALLis0NE

Having read the previous three posts. I gather that my intent here is not being met. You are not in need of prompting. And yet, there may be potential for benefit to the audience. So with apologies I proceed.

the concept of "nothingness" MUST exist in some form (such as an illusion or other non-real form like an idea or theory) in order for the concept and reality of "something" to exist.

We may as well suggest that "light cannot exist without darkness." An idea I also reject. But my rejection requires clarification. I acknowledge that if there is only light, observers of light may be unlikely to perceive it in the manner as one for whom there is both light and dark. If you wish to define "light" in such a way as to include the perception of one who perceives both light and dark, then I cannot refute you. But I would suggest that the thing that is light may be capable of existence outside of that perception.

Which I suspect is the exactly the idea you're trying to communicate.

ALLis0NE

All that is...all that may be...timelessness yet the possibility of the limitation of time, as well as all other limits as they too, may be...

...and then I build a wall.

Between this possibility and that one, I build a wall that separates them. This wall is a limitation. And yet I did not truly "build" a wall, because I have not added something new. Rather, I have manifested the existant possibility of "disconnection" in the form of a lack of awareness. That is the nature of the wall.

And I build another wall. And another. And more until eventually we have a compartmentalized set of possibilities that corresponds roughly to...for example...the awareness of one human being. That awareness might not be aware of, for example, the experience perceived by a blade of grass.

From the perception of that human being, the experience of the blade of grass does not exist. If he wishes to say that it is "nothing" I'm unlikely to argue with him.

However, if you, ALLisONE, were to come along and suggest that the perception of a blade of grass, or a deukma, or anything else, must exist for it to be possible for me to build walls between it and the perception of that human being in order for it to not exist for him...I'd be unlikely to argue with you either.

However...within the context of this thread, the "nothing" that I think some of us were referring to was simply a lack of directed mental focus. Is it not focus that creates these walls? When I look at a thing and choose to perceive it in a specific manner, do I not build walls between myself and other possible ways of perceiving it?

Originally posted by LordBucket
May I suggest that instead of trying to conceptualize
nothingness, you simply stop conceptualizing.

You do not empty a cup by putting emptiness into it.
You empty a cup by pouring the contents out.

Do you see?

Now, if you'll forgive me...

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
For "nothing" to exist, "something" would have to exist
along side it. You can't have 0 unless 1 exists.

I think this was not an effective way to communicate the idea I think you intended. A cup of tea does not imply a cup with no tea. Yes, the cup of tea does contain the potential for a cup with no tea...and no tea would need to be "removed" from the cup to accomplish that. Simply by choosing to focus on only the cup, there could be a cup with no tea, just like choosing to perceive a thing in one way closes off peception of other ways.

However...

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
For "nothingness" to exist there must be "something"
to remove so that you get "nothingness".

...yes. To build walls between things, there must be things to build a wall between.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by LordBucket]

Nothing exist as concept ONLY, because "Nothing exists" is contradictory statement. But we have concept of nothing (which still doesn't exist). It is similar as with numbers - it exists as concept or pure ideal. It have different modus of existence then stone or living thing or human.
Hegel's dialectics is unthinkable with concept of nothingness. If you are religious (even if not) Kierkegaard's works somehow operate with nothingness, but not so openly. Try also some later works (What is metaphysic) by Heidegger and/or J.P. Sartre: Being and nothingness.

Even Wikipedia article is quite instructive:

Part 1 Chapter 1: The origin of negation When we go about the world, we have expectations which are often not fulfilled. For example, Pierre is not at the café where we thought we would meet him, so there is a negation, a void, a nothingness, in the place of Pierre. When looking for Pierre his lack of being there becomes a negation; everything he sees as he searches the people and objects about him are "not Pierre."[4] So Sartre claims "It is evident that non-being always appears within the limits of a human expectation." [5]

BTW "horror vacui" is frequent theme in all philosophies.

Kinda weird for anyone to picture nothingness as black. After all black is absolute color where as white is the absence of color. Therefore black means something is there and white refers to the fact that nothing is there. Always kind of bothered me whenever I watched a big bang video the beginning "dot" is white and is surrounded by black. Just my two cents on the subject. I can't imagine nothingness.

reply to post by ventian

Kinda weird for anyone to picture nothingness as black. After all
black is absolute color where as white is the absence of color.

I suppose that depends on where you identify.

Assuming we're speaking of light, if an object is "black" then it absorbs all the colors of light that reach it. So yes...the black object "is/has" those colors. But in absorbing all of those colors it releases none, and so they do not reach your eye for you to see.

Whereas in the white object, all frequencies are released to your eye, and thus while the object itself might not "be/have" those colors, you are able to perceive them because it gives them to you.

Therefore black means something is there and white
refers to the fact that nothing is there.

The white is where something is there...for you.


[edit on 17-3-2010 by LordBucket]

reply to post by LordBucket


Well, thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I gotta get some lysol to clean up where my head just exploded lol.

I am really enjoying the conversation here, some really interesting points to ponder.

ok, here's my lil 2c (prob not worth much, but anyway)
I was about 14 (10 years ago) and was, as I still am, very interested in energy, philosophy and what not...
On this one day all my thoughts on energy, god and what seemed like everything else, amalgamated in my head. All I thought of that whole day was being a part of this energy, imagining the very smallest energies like atoms and expanding outward from that, to molecules, plants, animals, the land the sea, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe...

I was absolutely lost ( but I wouldn't sa badly, I wasn't fearful, nor hopeful for that matter, I just seemed to be, just be)

M mom picked me up from school and the half hour drive home was quiet, so I was left to m ponderings. I walked around to my outside room. When I think back on it now it's as if I wasn't aware, vauguely autonomous. I stopped outside my room, bag slung over my shoulder, keys in hand...
I just froze, I was in deep thought and staring at the ground. Still holding the imaginings of all that I know about energies and wht we perceive, kind of tring to mentall exit the universe. Suddenly all that I saw just standing there moulded into eachother, grass became flower beds, became wooden sheds, then everthing started fading to white. I didn't pay attention to it, It was like meditating, I was observing, allowing thoughts to flow.
This white out lasted a good couple seconds, mabe 10secs. I cant be sure.
It was strange, very content, very surreal. But just as with meditation, as soon as I noticed what was going on and allowed consciousness to question, this state of content faded back to reality.

I don't know what happened here, I would never state this as fact, but I like to believe I caught a glimpse of the beauty that encompases all we perceive.

It was nothingness, but to me everythingness at the same time.

edit: sorry if there is a lack of y's, I've got a sticky y, I dunno...

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Jimjolnir]

Originally posted by zeddissad
Nothing exists as concept ONLY, because "Nothing exists" is contradictory statement.

Yup, what zeddissad said. : )

'Nothingness' isn't something you observe or comprehend in any normal way, it's only conceivable metaphysically. In buddhism, in a very basic sense, that's considered to be 'the ultimate state' ie Nirvana, the total abandonment of the ego. People have spent thousands of years talking about this very subject.

It's, in my opinion, impossible to perceive nothingness in a normal state of mind. It takes deep meditation, years of practice and study, or you can take the psychedelic shortcut. When it happens, if you're not expecting it or able to understand what's going on, it can be terrifying, as it's not something within the normal capabilities of the human mind.

reply to post by eightfold


And it is basically in accord with what Heidegger say: being spring out of nothingness. Thus being IS basically nothingness. (At least) human being is hardwired with nothingness. My very popular (and probably bad) understanding of this is: you can not have concept of "being" without concept of "not-being". You can be fully man only if you accept your last option: not-to-be, dead. Dead is integral part of live and concept of live without dead have no sense. It is struggle of all life: TO BE or NOT TO BE. (Shakespeare/Bacon/or who ...) was very clever, as Hegel was and core of Buddhism is. If you fully accept your inevitable dead, than you are fully free - this is probably trouble only for humans (because highly developed self-consciousness).
Buddhism, phenomenology, even Marxism are part of ONE philosophy. All philosophical systems try to answer basic question: why we are (not) here?

Originally posted by Maddogkull
It is very logical to think that nothingness exists, but that is not part of my question. My question is how we conceptualize nothingness.

Apparently you decided to simply ignore the Goddess, and to continue on with a discussion about whether or not nothingness exists. However, that wasnt your original question. Your question was how to CONCEPTUALIZE it. How to think it. And you cant.

classweb.gmu.edu...

6 This indeed I indicate to you to be an all-not-inquirable-into straight track:

7 For neither would you know what is not (not-being) - for that is not accomplished -

8 Nor would you indicate it.

Depending upon how you interpret the earlier statements of the Goddess, this may or may not be reflective of the absolute truth, (aletheie) about "what is," but it IS a definitive statement on the architecture of the human mind and its workings. You cannot think of "non being" or "nothingness." You can say it is the "lack of" something, but even then, your mind has to create a "something" in which this supposed "nothingness" resides and or is contrasted to. Our minds are not designed to function this way, the thinking mind evolved to deal with "what is."

You cannot think of nothing, and you cannot speak of nothing. Except perhaps by the clever lack of text technique. But even that is just lack of something, (text) and not nothingness as an absolute.

Originally posted by LordBucket

We may as well suggest that "light cannot exist without darkness." An idea I also reject. But my rejection requires clarification. I acknowledge that if there is only light, observers of light may be unlikely to perceive it in the manner as one for whom there is both light and dark. If you wish to define "light" in such a way as to include the perception of one who perceives both light and dark, then I cannot refute you. But I would suggest that the thing that is light may be capable of existence outside of that perception.

So, are you asserting that light and darkness are two distinct things? If so, where is the dividing line between them? Or is it also possible that the "thing" that is light is not separate from the thing that is "dark?" Is it not possible that they arent even "two sides of a coin" but rather that our minds must divide something fundamentally indivisible in order for it to think or talk about that "thing?"

Anyway, I highly recommend anyone actually interested in the subject read what the Goddess had to tell Parmenides. It was and still is one of the most intriguing pieces of literature on the subject. Or you can go lurching along,

3 For from this first road of inquiry I bar you,

4 But also from the road on which mortals understanding nothing

5-6 Wander two-headed, for helplessness in their own breasts drives their wandering noos straight, and they are borne lurching along

7 Deaf and blind equally, dazed, a tribe without judgment,

8 By whom it is held that pelein (to be; to go on) and ouk einai (not to be) are the same

9 And not the same, but the path of all is back-turning.

Originally posted by Jimjolnir

It was nothingness, but to me everythingness at the same time.

Which is a very good point. Do the distinguishing lines we draw mentally between "this and that" actually have meaning? Are they based on some objective truth about the essence of the "thing(s)" we draw lines upon and between? Or are they simply artifacts of our minds? Useful practicalities to us, that say absolutely nothing about the thing in itself?