Philosophy Now Forum

It gets that way after a few back and forths. Hang on a sec, I'll try to get the thoughts organised.

Here's one aspect for starters:

Dalek Prime wrote:I agree with the poster regarding dreamless sleep, and use it as an example, often, of what nonexistence would be like. ... he is entirely separated from them in deep sleep, not experiencing them at all, and completely oblivious to them. ... What he's describing really is more akin to the saying 'fences make for good neighbours' because he's experiencing the peace that is nothingness.

I responded with:

Complete mindlessness is the state of a drone. Drones are entirely connected, the only discernible "self" being its physical form and its connections to influential forces. Based on deep sleep and some meditation reports it feels good to be so entirely connected to reality that there is no "you" - but only if you wake to be "you" again to appreciate it.

You considered subjective nothingness from the perspective of total disconnection, due to a lack of self or environmental awareness. By contrast, I noted that drones have no awareness. An inert body has no awareness but you could say it has a deeper connection with its environment than a more dynamic body. A dead or comatose body is one of the most inviting things in nature, easy resources for any local life form, passively subject to anything the environment throws at it, unable to respond or protect itself - but it doesn't know, and therefore cannot care or suffer through the damage done.

By contrast, aware things actively resist the persistent attempts of environment to kill them, to reduce them to cadavers, ie. food. For all living things there comes a time when they are too weary of these constant subtle assassination attempts (often by microbes) to continue resisting. Subjective nothingness at least has its uses.

A lot to think on, Greta. Okay if I answer tomorrow? (A bit tired now, but I wanted you to know that did see your latest post, and wasn't ignoring it.) And thank you for restating. It's gracious of you, and appreciated.

Dalek Prime wrote:A lot to think on, Greta. Okay if I answer tomorrow?

Sure. Have a good relax.

Another thought. Based on antinatalism, terraforming other worlds would be doing those worlds an injustice. Basically we'd be agitating the surface geology that had been obviously "asleep" for millennia, forcing those molecules into biological processes where pain and suffering can be experienced.

On the other hand, seeding other worlds also brings the potential for intelligent life to eventually transcend suffering. What if suffering is only a temporary state to be transcended for most of the universe's lifespan? Billions of years dominated by ever more decent and contented beings that are never smug about it.

JSS wrote:
Thus no universe could have ever been at a state of absolute nothingness, a pre-Big-Bang state, nor can even the tiniest fraction of any universe ever be absolutely empty.

The same conclusion can be reached by simple logic: nothingness conveys the idea of nonexistence, of not being. By definition, it cannot "be" nothing because it immediately would cancel its nothingness in the act of being. In other words, nonexistence cannot exist.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

JSS wrote:
Thus no universe could have ever been at a state of absolute nothingness, a pre-Big-Bang state, nor can even the tiniest fraction of any universe ever be absolutely empty.

The same conclusion can be reached by simple logic: nothingness conveys the idea of nonexistence, of not being. By definition, it cannot "be" nothing because it immediately would cancel its nothingness in the act of being. In other words, nonexistence cannot exist.

That you play word games is nothing new, invalid logic yields nothing. Well nothing of any real value!

By definition, nothingness is nonexistence; not being. So only a fool would say: "...nonexistence cannot exist." Why simply repeat the definition, simply reiterate, as if that actually says something. Read the topic, it says absolutely nothing about existence.

What was here before the big bang? What banged? Where did that which banged come from? If in fact the universe is expanding, what is it displacing? How could something exist and expand in something? What is the something it's expanding into? What is the nothing it's expanding into? Where did humans come from? Before there was life on this planet, there was nothing, at least with respect to life. They say the big bang was the origin of our universe, that after it banged it rapidly expanded. If it expanded that means it had to expand somewhere, and if it expanded into something, then it wasn't our origin, as the something it expanded into had to be here first. Could it have expanded into nothing, the nothing being a void; simply space? Is nothing simply space? The opposite of nothing is forever being, ad infinitum. Really, there has always been something, to infinity? Can you envision infinity? Try and see it complete. Watch that your head doesn't explode. Wait, once you weren't, now you are, soon you won't be. You knew nothing before you were born, now you believe you know something, and when you die you shall know nothing again. Of course the stardust you are made of shall remain to be reintegrated into something else. But scientists believe that it all came from a singularity. How about entropy, heat death? Contrast singularity with entropy; infinity; always something?

I believe those that believe in always something, just do so because they fear dying. It's there way of believing that they shall always exist. It does seem to fit with the underlying human theme, as it's seen throughout our history.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
I believe those that believe in always something, just do so because they fear dying. It's there way of believing that they shall always exist. It does seem to fit with the underlying human theme, as it's seen throughout our history.

No, that's not what's been pointed to here, no one is implying there is the belief in always something, you said that.

Conde Lucanor.. simply said that nonexistence is impossible,which is correct. But that does not imply that because nonexistence is impossible.. it must always exist...no one can possibly know that either do you see?

The correct way to put this is to say EXISTENCE IS... quite evidently so... seemingly.. but there is no one living it, it is living itself.

No one can know what or who they ARE...but they can know what they ARE NOT...but who even knows that is the one burning question?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
By definition, nothingness is nonexistence; not being.

So who would know that? surely to know that there has to be something existing to know such an idea?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So only a fool would say: "...nonexistence cannot exist." Why simply repeat the definition, simply reiterate, as if that actually says something. Read the topic, it says absolutely nothing about existence.

Yes, the topic says nothing about existence, but let ME ask you, how can the impossibility of nothingness be known without the existence of that knowledge, so existence has to play apart in the equation SOMEWHERE / SOMEHOW doesn't it?

You are the one being a fool talking to another poster like that.

Just to remind YOU... the meaning of the word NOTHINGNESS is known by the general human consensus as NON EXISTENT..ooh look it's that word you don't like. SO YOUR THE ONE PLAYING WITH WORDS AND TWISTING THEM AROUND TO MEET YOUR OWN AGENDA.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothingness?s=t

SpheresOfBalance wrote: If in fact the universe is expanding, what is it displacing? How could something exist and expand in something?

I don't think the universe is expanding into anything, as every possible corner of infinity is without border. Nothingness cannot move into where it is already. What's more likely happening is the universe is static expanding and contracting within itself in one teeny weeny tiny point called the singularity like a heart beat pulsing in and out of existence now you see me now you don't ...here now nowhere and everywhere. But what the heck do I know?

Dontaskme wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
By definition, nothingness is nonexistence; not being.

Nothing is not evident.
Which is not the state of affairs. And can never be evident, nor can it be the state of affairs. Your question could not even exist. If that is not the very epitome of impossible then please tell me why not.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Nothing is not evident.
Which is not the state of affairs. And can never be evident, nor can it be the state of affairs. Your question could not even exist. If that is not the very epitome of impossible then please tell me why not.

Know that all words used to describe the ineffable are concepts and only point to what we are attempting to describe or understand. Words alone cannot do it, and they don't need to. For silent still emptiness is without doubt or error. And that emptiness is known as the void. The knower of this implies a presence, this presence does not belong to an entity, it's beyond time and space of cause and effect duality, it is neither existing nor non existing, it is both and yet neither. Emptiness is evident only in the knowledge of such which is an illusion, but apparently the illusion is real as evidenced.

This subject is so tricky.

PS... Nothingness is not what we think it is..because nothing is also everything...they are the same no thing.


The universal existence is an ever-developing process, an activity and not a thing. There is no cessation of this process anywhere but only the mere show of it. THAT out of which and in which it arises is alone exempt from this vibration, being formless, intangible, inconceivable void.


He who binds to himself a joy Does the winged life destroy; But he who kisses the joy as it flies Lives in eternity's sun rise. - William Blake

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Nothing is not evident.
Which is not the state of affairs. And can never be evident, nor can it be the state of affairs. Your question could not even exist. If that is not the very epitome of impossible then please tell me why not.

Know that all words used to describe the ineffable are concepts and only point to what we are attempting to describe or understand. Words alone cannot do it, and they don't need to. For silent still emptiness is without doubt or error. And that emptiness is known as the void. The knower of this implies a presence, this presence does not belong to an entity, it's beyond time and space of cause and effect duality, it is neither existing nor non existing, it is both and yet neither. Emptiness is evident only in the knowledge of such which is an illusion, but apparently the illusion is real as evidenced.

This subject is so tricky.

PS... Nothingness is not what we think it is..because nothing is also everything...they are the same no thing.

The universal existence is an ever-developing process, an activity and not a thing. There is no cessation of this process anywhere but only the mere show of it. THAT out of which and in which it arises is alone exempt from this vibration, being formless, intangible, inconceivable void.

I know a fellow online who's a big fan of "the "Void" and his counter to posts like Hobbes's is that death is where we encounter nothingness. Ok, maybe.

He says that nothingness is not restricted by physical laws so therefore anything can theoretically happen in the Void - like the creation of universes. In fact, he reckoned The Void was so pregnant with possibilities that the state of total nothingness would be highly unstable and unsustainable. Or something like that.

It's an interesting, if heavily-trod, topic although I tend to side with Hobbes in that "something" is all we've ever known, so nothingness would seem to be either theoretical or relative.

Greta wrote: I know a fellow online who's a big fan of "the "Void" and his counter to posts like Hobbes's is that death is where we encounter nothingness. Ok, maybe.

He says that nothingness is not restricted by physical laws so therefore anything can theoretically happen in the Void - like the creation of universes. In fact, he reckoned The Void was so pregnant with possibilities that the state of total nothingness would be highly unstable and unsustainable. Or something like that.

It's an interesting, if heavily-trod, topic although I tend to side with Hobbes in that "something" is all we've ever known, so nothingness would seem to be either theoretical or relative.

What's being pointed to here is that there is no one to know the state of pure nothingness, so it's pointless to even suggest the idea in the first place. Same goes for the state of something. There is no one to know this either.

So what is known?

Anything known can only be known via the knowledge available. All knowledge is illusory, knowledge is pure conceptually contrived imagination.

To say nothing cannot exist but something can.. is like saying hot can exist but cold can't...they both exist simultaneously, they are complimentary opposites, can't know one without the other, but there is no knower of any concept, concepts are known one with the knowing..what this knowing is is not a concept, it is unknowable, it is the absolute.

There is no such thing as a counter hypothesis in reality as there are no relationships, this is one undivided whole without beginning or end. (What begins ends,(known) nothingness sustains (unknown)

There is no thing to know something just as there is no thing to know nothing ... these ideas are concepts, purely imagined.

It is not a something knowing ''something'' ... something is without error, although is not known, just as nothing is not known.

What is known is only ever one with the knowing... humans don't know what this knowing is for they are already inclusive of this knowing. That which is known cannot know anything.

The something we have always ever known is no thing. Something can only be known in relation to it's exact polar opposite nothing... but the conceptual split of opposing opposites are an illusion. ..as all is ever ONE

There is no knower of the known, there is only knowing.

Both concepts something and nothing are not relative to one another they are ONE ...something and nothing are the same ineffable reality.

A human being has never known life or death, a human being is a concept known by that which is not a concept...you were not there at your birth and you will not be there at your death because you only exist as a concept known by that which is not a concept.

No thing / concept has ever known life or death, such things are ideas only.

There is only this ineffable oneness neither born nor dead.

There is no such thing as life or death. There's just this.

This is it.

Dontaskme wrote:To say nothing cannot exist but something can.. is like saying hot can exist but cold can't...they both exist simultaneously, they are complimentary opposites, can't know one without the other ...

The opposites may in fact be almost everything and almost nothing, given that absolutes and nature don't appear to be compatible.

My view isn't about what can exist so much as how reality seems based on the, admittedly very incomplete, evidence so far.