Nothing is real

I am not the first person to discuss it, but for whatever reason reading it in these pages in conjunction with some of the threads in this discussion forum made me consider the idea from a different perspective. I love language, and consider language to be one of our primary methods of manipulating reality. I tend to dissect language when words are presented to me. What is interesting about the statement "nothing is real" is that while it is clearly a statement of words, it is also a mathematical statement:

0=R

Where "R" is "real" or "reality". In this format, the mathematical statement is for the most part the same as the verbal statement. However, with the equation something deeper is revealed. "R" represents a variable concept, arguably what "reality" essentially is. 0, however, is a constant value...the lack of value or nil. This suggests that "reality" is in fact a non-state, a state of emptiness. All other concepts...all other values, thus become "unreal". Having value negates the "reality" of item or event in question, according to the equation 0="R".

But, let us take the statement "nothing is real" a step further. The word "nothing" is actually a contraction of two words, "no" and "thing", each with a distinct meaning. "No" is essentially "anti", "non", "none", or the reversal of some state. "Thing" is essentially a variable has yet to be defined, but is a variable in a state of being. Mathematically, the equation changes:

-X=R

Where "X" is the variable concept "thing" and "R" is the variable concept "reality". A deeper concept reveals itself. "Thing" is a state of being. "Reality" thus becomes the state of non-being. Any other state of being becomes "unreal"...a delusion of perception.

Lets consider some other philosophical arguments regarding "reality".

R=>0<

This is meant to represent the idea that "reality is everything", but my keyboard lacks an infinity symbol. This idea of course creates a paradox; for "reality" to be everything, it would need to also be everything that is "unreal". All concepts, delusions, imaginings, become "real" and all definition becomes pointless. We would thus find that:

>0

reply to post by Tindalos2013


you are smart but u miss some crucial deductions of ur own logics pursuit

i will go fast since it is ur own expressions so u would surely get the point meant

nothing is real, says principally absolute element of reality to b,
what is absolutely could b positively or negatively, here it is negatively

if there is no things at all absolutely then absolute of else then thing exist

here where u could get the equation in truth right

freedom is what is positively absolutely real

"Reality is merely an illusion,albeit a very persistent one." -Albert Einstein



I suck at math but I agree with you that our perception does alter things.Imagine the reality of someone that is insane.It might not be reality to the rest of us but it is to him.Or when you are wrong about something,then you learn the 'truth' and your reality changes.What is big really?What is small?Maybe 'language' and 'ideas' and 'truth' dont alter reality,instead they bind it.

Everything is real, but only in this life time...Other than that it becomes nothing to us in another life time.

For example if I punch a wall that is near me, its going to hurt which gives me the sensation of a realistic feeling, pain in other words. Which tells me I am existing now. If I die everything I knew before will not be the same. Which means if I happened to live in the same house in a different era or dimension, and if I was punching that same area it could be a different scenario. Instead of hitting something I would be punching nothing...

What sees and hears is consciousness. It is not a 'thing'.
Consciousness can only know itself.
Consciousness is all there is, and it is not a 'thing'.
Consciousness is hiding behind the 'things'.
The 'things' are no more than thoughts.
All 'things' are passing but the 'thing' that is 'not a thing' never passes.
Nothing is real. Things are not.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


ur logics deductions reveal ur fallacies

if nothing is real, then being nothing become real with objective all and any no things

it would not as u said be limited to itself closed cell self

truth open gates and never the opposite

Everything exists. And nothing exists.

Everything = anything that exists

Nothing = Doesnt exist, its like a shadow, its simply not there. Its merely the contrast of something illuminated and not illuminated. Either way the object is the same, whether illuminated or not.

Exist = Self referential certainty. Must be able to ascertain through ones own awareness that his own existence is 100% true, with absolute certainty.


So everything exists, means anything within reality that exists.
Whilst nothing exists, means that, "nothing" which is not anything, exists, so in effect we are making a null statement, 0 x 1 = 0, it doesnt mean anything.

Nothing exists is the same as saying nothing at all, it is not saying anything at all. Although the statement is in fact true. Because we are saying "nothing" which refers to something that doesnt exist, exists. So this thing which doesnt exist, exists. In other words something that doesnt exist, doesnt exist.

Originally posted by Keiju

Nothing exists is the same as saying nothing at all, it is not saying anything at all. Although the statement is in fact true. Because we are saying "nothing" which refers to something that doesnt exist, exists. So this thing which doesnt exist, exists. In other words something that doesnt exist, doesnt exist.

Are you saying that the "non-existence of something" is, in fact, the "existence of nothing"? As in, the thing that does not exist obviously does not exist but the state of it not existing exists?

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by Keiju

Nothing exists is the same as saying nothing at all, it is not saying anything at all. Although the statement is in fact true. Because we are saying "nothing" which refers to something that doesnt exist, exists. So this thing which doesnt exist, exists. In other words something that doesnt exist, doesnt exist.

Are you saying that the "non-existence of something" is, in fact, the "existence of nothing"? As in, the thing that does not exist obviously does not exist but the state of it not existing exists?

Yes, very good

reply to post by Tindalos2013


S & F....

"Nothing" is "Something".... or the word "Nothing", would NOT exist... the word only exists because it is Something, which is "Nothing"... LOl.
It is a "Paradox" in itself.

This "Nothing" is a unique "Paradox" in that "Nothing" exists, and in its complete Component is Nothing/Something.

In other words, the one can not exist without the other, because one is compared with the other.

Its probably the beginning of all, in that the condition of "Something – Nothing", would be inherently unstable and behave in an astable like way, forming the first "Oscillation".
This being between "Nothing" and "Something" in its unstable state, hence the "astable" like function within itself, the "Opposites", Nothing & Something existing as one Conceptual Component having like 2 Faces in abstract form.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

What sees and hears is consciousness. It is not a 'thing'.
Consciousness can only know itself.
Consciousness is all there is, and it is not a 'thing'.
Consciousness is hiding behind the 'things'.
The 'things' are no more than thoughts.
All 'things' are passing but the 'thing' that is 'not a thing' never passes.
Nothing is real. Things are not.

edit on 25-11-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

If that consciousness is Everything, then to know itself is to know Everything.

As to the OP, the OP said Nothing is Negative by assigning "-" to X, which Negative and Positive are both Sumthing, thus, to assign a sign to Nothing creates Sumthing.

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


I would not say that 'consciousness is Everything, then to know itself is to know Everything', because it is a little misleading.

If consciousness is all there is then to know itself is to know 'this'.
'Everything' implies more than one.
'This' is all there is. Is 'this' everything? It may be all there is but it is not more than one and it is not a thing.

Originally posted by Tindalos2013
I am not the first person to discuss it, but for whatever reason reading it in these pages in conjunction with some of the threads in this discussion forum made me consider the idea from a different perspective. I love language, and consider language to be one of our primary methods of manipulating reality. I tend to dissect language when words are presented to me. What is interesting about the statement "nothing is real" is that while it is clearly a statement of words, it is also a mathematical statement:

0=R

Where "R" is "real" or "reality". In this format, the mathematical statement is for the most part the same as the verbal statement. However, with the equation something deeper is revealed. "R" represents a variable concept, arguably what "reality" essentially is. 0, however, is a constant value...the lack of value or nil. This suggests that "reality" is in fact a non-state, a state of emptiness. All other concepts...all other values, thus become "unreal". Having value negates the "reality" of item or event in question, according to the equation 0="R".

But, let us take the statement "nothing is real" a step further. The word "nothing" is actually a contraction of two words, "no" and "thing", each with a distinct meaning. "No" is essentially "anti", "non", "none", or the reversal of some state. "Thing" is essentially a variable has yet to be defined, but is a variable in a state of being. Mathematically, the equation changes:

-X=R

Where "X" is the variable concept "thing" and "R" is the variable concept "reality". A deeper concept reveals itself. "Thing" is a state of being. "Reality" thus becomes the state of non-being. Any other state of being becomes "unreal"...a delusion of perception.

Lets consider some other philosophical arguments regarding "reality".

R=>0<

This is meant to represent the idea that "reality is everything", but my keyboard lacks an infinity symbol. This idea of course creates a paradox; for "reality" to be everything, it would need to also be everything that is "unreal". All concepts, delusions, imaginings, become "real" and all definition becomes pointless. We would thus find that:

>0

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


I exist. So i know i am but can i really be sure there is anything else. There are appearances experienced, but what are the appearances? Can appearances exist without my presence?
So what is this 'I'? Is it something? Is it something 'real'? Or does 'I' just occur as a thought? What is a thought? Can you show me a solid thought?

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


The appearances are being researched in science labs, scientists can't understand what makes the appearances, what they are made of or where they come from. We are so wrapped up in the appearances which we call 'things'. But 'things' can not appear without presence.
What is presence?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

 

I exist. So i know i am but can i really be sure there is anything else. There are appearances experienced, but what are the appearances? Can appearances exist without my presence?
So what is this 'I'? Is it something? Is it something 'real'? Or does 'I' just occur as a thought? What is a thought? Can you show me a solid thought?

edit on 26-11-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

First, you know you are not just an abstract "consciousness" because in order to say, "I exist," you must admit that both consciousness exists and something actually physically existing must also exist, which is you - they must exist simultaneously. In other words, you cannot know you exist unless you are first conscious, and you cannot be conscious unless you first exist. That is what "I" is.... It is the simultaneous existence of both the physical you and your consciousness, which must, by reason of the Law of Identity, be coexistent (which means animism is probably true). Hence, the reason I am a bit of a panpsychist.

Yes, you can know that something exists which is not you... You know that you exist (or at least you must accept that to even have a coherent thought), and in order to know that you exist you must be capable of knowing. If you are capable of knowing, and there are naturally some things which you do not know but later discover and hence know through experience, then you can naturally deduce that something which is not you exists. In other words, because you experience something (regardless of whether it may be just internal and mental), something must exist besides yourself or you could never have a new experience. Now, it is possible that you might create that experience, but once it is created it becomes real and is not you because you cannot be both the experiencer and the experience via the Law of Excluded Middle.

And "yes", I can, in a way, show you a solid thought, because I am a panpsychist (so I am able to escape the usual problems of mind-body). A solid thought is that which is had by a physical being which is conscious. No one can show a thought which occurs without consciousness and no one can show consciousness which exists without a physical being - hence my panpsychist leanings. A concrete thought would be anything which my physical body does as a result of my thinking - a painting for example. In fact, my physical body animates my thoughts and brings them to life. This is best discerned by imagining emotions as "animated thoughts".

Appearances are nothing more than experiences, and experiences are, as I suggested the acquisition of conscious knowledge. Could they exist without your presence? That depends on whether you are God or not. If there is no being higher up the chain than yourself, then it would be impossible for an appearance to exist without you, but if you are merely a conscious "piece" of God, then most certainly they could exist, as you are not the whole of God, but only a tiny brain cell.

Finally, in reference to what the Original Poster was mentioning, I am a firm believer in creatio ex deo, as it is an impossibility for something to be created from out of nothing, meaning that God would have had nothing by which to create any of this from; therefore, we are pieces of God - hence my belief in panpsychism. I believe in creatio ex deo because something had to always exist, that something is what we commonly refer to as God, and even God cannot create something from out of nothing (see the Laws of Thought, which allow us to reason that there must be a God in the first place).

If we are pieces of God it would explain why we can create somethings, but not all things. It also means that we will never not exist, and that we always did exist, but we are merely transformations of the same energy or being, which explains how we came into being without having to allow God the ability to do the impossible, which is to create something from nothing.

It is obvious that I believe creatio ex nihilo is insanity (it requires us to violate the Law of Thought which allow us to reason the existence of God in the first place), but to explain why I believe creatio ex materia is just as much a crock would take another thread.

reply to post by Tindalos2013


Actually I prefer to think that it is NOTHING which is unreal. Recent scientific discoveries suggest that there is no such thing as empty space, the vacuum of our Universe is filled with virtual particles which come in and out of existence. So it is the idea of nothing which is the impossibility, not the idea of reality. No Such Thing as Empty Space

reply to post by Tindalos2013

Nothing is real...

(Mathematical Jargon Proving nothing)

...

I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

Consciousness and language is all that is needed to beable to say 'I exist'. Existance is consciousness.
You are conscious are you not? What is the 'I'? 'I' is a word. There is not a 'you' and awakeness. Awakeness or conscious (ness) is what you are. They are not two things.
Consciousness thinks. Consciousness speaks. It learns language and speaking happens. This speaking that consciousness does once learned does not know how to stop speaking, verbalizing, it speaks to itself. In the thinking process there is a dialogue but who are you talking to?
This consciousness is 'I'. There is not a 'I' and a 'you'. I is one. Consciousness is the all seeing, all knowing 'I'.
Knowing is what you are. You are the knower of experience. You can only ever experience yourself having experience. What is experienced is never the 'thing'. We can not be sure there are any things as such because we can not ever experience anything outside of our experience.

Consciousness has to be but the body and mind are no more than illusionary, they are images appearing presently but changing constantly The body and mind (which is seen as thoughts appearing presently) are known by consciousness, they appear now. Now is what you really are - Presence. There is nothing but presence. Is presence a 'thing'? Is existance made of 'things'? Is consciousness a 'thing'?
Appearances appear within consciousness as consciousness presently, always presently.

The #1 problem faced by Omniscience is the inability to be omnipresent inside of ABSOLUTE non-existence, since it is a self-annihilating concept just because consciousness attaches a concept to "it". Everything is a type of existence. Only relative non-existence exists. Pure and absolute nothing cannot exist because as any consciousness considers it, therefore introduces definitions as a type of existence.

This #1 problem is why the Universe exists. So omnipresence can be fulfilled, through finites as proxies. That'd be us. "Nothing" is the most impotant thing there is.