Philosophy Now Forum

The problem with "nothing", is to name it, it give the impression that it is a thing.
And i see fallacies on this site because of it.
In fact, you could use it only when you have another way to say what you want to say, if you can’t, it mean you are using "nothing" in you sentence in the same way you would use "something", and do a mistake of reasoning.

By example:
"There is nothing" mean "it is false that there is something".
Here it is ok, because it is just a way to be more short, but really it is also a abuse of language.
Here is how it is possible to draw a absurd conclusion from it:
For whatever X "There is X" implies "There is something"
Then
"There is nothing" implies "There is something"
Here the conclusion is so absurd, that you directly see the mistake, but there are much more subtle errors because of it.

In fact, math is right on it, because math never give a name to "nothing".
"0" is not nothing, it is a particular number, that can be used to represent the quantity of a kind of thing, when this kind of thing is absent.
What would be more near of "nothing", is the empty set {} or ∅.
But it is still not "nothing", it is a set, what is "nothing", is what contains the set, and like you could see, there is no name for it.

The interesting thing, is that,"for whatever x∈∅, P(x) is true." (∀ x∈ ∅, P(x))
You could see that if you begin to think you could give a name to "nothing", that you could assign a variable to nothing, then this "nothing", or this "x", will have all the properties you could imagine, what is absurd.

In fact, "(∀ x∈ ∅, P(x))" is true, because x is never used, x never become "nothing", it is true because "(∃ x∈∅)" is false.
But if you begin something by saying : "let x=nothing, x is…" then your demonstration is false.
It mean, you can’t speak about "what is nothing", it is obvious, because "nothing" is not something. (yes, i did the mistake just after stating the general rule, you could see how it is misleading)
It is always a abuse to speak about "nothing", and this abuse is only "ok" when you could say what you want in another way.

See some examples of fallacies about that:

Nothing have no property, then nothing don’t exists, then there is something

Here the first step is a mistake "nothing have no property" is meaningless, you can’t translate that by the negation of another sentence, you can’t say it without using "nothing", like "something".

The universe is all things, then if the universe had a beginning, it mean that there was nothing before it.
But then, it mean you get something from nothing, what is impossible, then the universe have no beginning

Here it is subtle, because you could translate "it mean that there was nothing before it" by "it is false that there was a "before it"".
But to put it in this way, incites to think about "nothing", like "a empty thing".
And then the true mistake appear "But then, it mean you get something from nothing", this sentence is meaningless, and like you could see, you can’t translate this sentence without using "nothing". (it is not false, it is really meaningless)
If the universe have a beginning, then there is no "before this beginning".
And it also follow that there is no creation, because to have creation, you need a before the creation exists, and a after the creation exists.
Here i am not saying it is possible to have "no before", nor that it could make sense. (i don’t know about it).
What i am saying, is how the use of "nothing", is misleading and lead to meaningless sentences.

Then please, if you do some strange reasoning containing the word "nothing", try to translate it without using the word, if you can’t, you have great chance that you are wrong.

Yes, 'Nothing' is impossible, and thus we reaffirm that Existence has no contrast class, no opposite—it has to be, as inherent in existence alone, which we already know, for nonexistence cannot have being.

So, there is no "From Nothing", as Existence is ever, thus with neither beginning nor end.

PoeticUniverse wrote:Yes, 'Nothing' is impossible, and thus we reaffirm that Existence has no contrast class, no opposite—it has to be, as inherent in existence alone, which we already know, for nonexistence cannot have being.

So, there is no "From Nothing", as Existence is ever, thus with neither beginning nor end.

But it is obviously useful to imply a lack of a thing in particular cases.
E.g Yes, we have no bananas, we have no bananas today.

Of the Glubglus tribe are atheistic because they have no gods.

Open the box to see your prize!!! Ha ha there is nothing in the box.

I fail to see the problem.

Now no thing cannot logically be some thing for the two are mutually exclusive. So to imply that they are the same just
because they share a common syllable is simply wrong. As the reason why they do share one is because of the limitation
of language not logic. It is also important to under stand the scientific difference between nothing and absolute nothing
Nothing in that scenario is actually something because it is not the absence of everything. It is more commonly known as
a vacuum and is defined as the absence of matter. But absolute nothing as the name implies is the absence of everything

*bleep*

PoeticUniverse wrote:Yes, 'Nothing' is impossible, and thus we reaffirm that Existence has no contrast class, no opposite—it has to be, as inherent in existence alone, which we already know, for nonexistence cannot have being.

So, there is no "From Nothing", as Existence is ever, thus with neither beginning nor end.

Where was your conciousness before your conception? Where were you? And who is this 'we' that is reaffirming we have no contrast class(ification) to existence?

dionisos wrote:The problem with "nothing", is to name it, it give the impression that it is a thing.
And i see fallacies on this site because of it.
In fact, you could use it only when you have another way to say what you want to say, if you can’t, it mean you are using "nothing" in you sentence in the same way you would use "something", and do a mistake of reasoning.

By example:
"There is nothing" mean "it is false that there is something".
Here it is ok, because it is just a way to be more short, but really it is also a abuse of language.
Here is how it is possible to draw a absurd conclusion from it:
For whatever X "There is X" implies "There is something"
Then
"There is nothing" implies "There is something"
Here the conclusion is so absurd, that you directly see the mistake, but there are much more subtle errors because of it.

In fact, math is right on it, because math never give a name to "nothing".
"0" is not nothing, it is a particular number, that can be used to represent the quantity of a kind of thing, when this kind of thing is absent.
What would be more near of "nothing", is the empty set {} or ∅.
But it is still not "nothing", it is a set, what is "nothing", is what contains the set, and like you could see, there is no name for it.

The interesting thing, is that,"for whatever x∈∅, P(x) is true." (∀ x∈ ∅, P(x))
You could see that if you begin to think you could give a name to "nothing", that you could assign a variable to nothing, then this "nothing", or this "x", will have all the properties you could imagine, what is absurd.

In fact, "(∀ x∈ ∅, P(x))" is true, because x is never used, x never become "nothing", it is true because "(∃ x∈∅)" is false.
But if you begin something by saying : "let x=nothing, x is…" then your demonstration is false.
It mean, you can’t speak about "what is nothing", it is obvious, because "nothing" is not something. (yes, i did the mistake just after stating the general rule, you could see how it is misleading)
It is always a abuse to speak about "nothing", and this abuse is only "ok" when you could say what you want in another way.

See some examples of fallacies about that:

Nothing have no property, then nothing don’t exists, then there is something

Here the first step is a mistake "nothing have no property" is meaningless, you can’t translate that by the negation of another sentence, you can’t say it without using "nothing", like "something".

The universe is all things, then if the universe had a beginning, it mean that there was nothing before it.
But then, it mean you get something from nothing, what is impossible, then the universe have no beginning

Here it is subtle, because you could translate "it mean that there was nothing before it" by "it is false that there was a "before it"".
But to put it in this way, incites to think about "nothing", like "a empty thing".
And then the true mistake appear "But then, it mean you get something from nothing", this sentence is meaningless, and like you could see, you can’t translate this sentence without using "nothing". (it is not false, it is really meaningless)
If the universe have a beginning, then there is no "before this beginning".
And it also follow that there is no creation, because to have creation, you need a before the creation exists, and a after the creation exists.
Here i am not saying it is possible to have "no before", nor that it could make sense. (i don’t know about it).
What i am saying, is how the use of "nothing", is misleading and lead to meaningless sentences.

Then please, if you do some strange reasoning containing the word "nothing", try to translate it without using the word, if you can’t, you have great chance that you are wrong.

Stop confusing the issue. When I use nothing, I do mean just that. I say things in certain ways in order to convey a meaning. The fact that someone then nit-picks on my wording, concluding I'm the one who is confused, is not my issue. Eg. I often talk about non-existence/existents as if they, or nothing, is something. It doesn't mean I actually am leading to that.

Dalek Prime wrote:Where was your conciousness before your conception?

The same as after i die.

Dalek Prime wrote:Where were you?

A gleam in my father's eye? An unreal future?

Dalek Prime wrote:And who is this 'we' that is reaffirming we have no contrast class(ification) to existence?

Either I'm a Regent or I have tapeworms or I made a mistake.

PoeticUniverse wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Where was your conciousness before your conception?

The same as after i die.

Dalek Prime wrote:Where were you?

A gleam in my father's eye? An unreal future?

Dalek Prime wrote:And who is this 'we' that is reaffirming we have no contrast class(ification) to existence?

Either I'm a Regent or I have tapeworms or I made a mistake.

I'm so glad we didn't have a chance to talk. Thanks for your avoidance.

OK, before I was born, I was spread across other atoms, and so I couldn't function as an entity, and will go on to a similar state after I die.

PoeticUniverse wrote:OK, before I was born, I was spread across other atoms, and so I couldn't function as an entity, and will go on to a similar state after I die.

Thank you. It's appreciated.

So you're merely stating something that wasn't you, and won't be you again, existed. Not you or your conscious existence? That's fair enough. Just wanted to clarify.

PoeticUniverse wrote:OK, before I was born, I was spread across other atoms, and so I couldn't function as an entity, and will go on to a similar state after I die.

"ashes to ashes, dust to dust" is a phrase from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer burial service. They're a rather desiccated old bunch of killjoys in the C of E but I reckon they got this bit right.

The problem you appear to have with "nothing" is simply the word itself creating the confusion. Do not use "nothing" but rather the words "no thing" and enter the metaphysical where all 'things' arise and all 'things' return... to 'no thing-ness.'

Within 'no thing' there is more than 'any thing'... Pure Consciousness that lies beyond "nothing" for Consciousness is "no thing" and equally all there is. Until you are able to achieve 'no thing-ness' you remain in 'thing-ness' believing that is all there is to existence as experienced thru the limited senses of hu'manity... a 'thing-ness' that has limited life as mind 'sees' it and the inability to comprehend "no thing-ness" is the single most valuable experience to grasp.

mtmynd1