Philosophy Now Forum

Nothing is Something, it's substance, just because you can't see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it, doesn't mean it's not there.

Nothing is being Sight (vision)
Nothing is being Hearing (sound)
Nothing is being Taste (gustation)
Nothing is being Smell (olfaction)
Nothing is being Touch (tactile perception)

Nothing is permanent. Senses come and go as something in nothing. Nothing stays.

You are conflating 'nothing' [epistemology] with 'something' [ontology].
This is the equivocation fallacy.

If I put 100 balls in a box, there is something in the box, i.e. 100 balls.
If all the 100 balls are taken out, then there is nothing, i.e. nothing in the box.
In this case, the something and nothing is qualified [context] of things in a box within the general convention.
So, context is critical.

In the context of say Physics, say a sealable air tight bottle.
In this context we may recognize the air there in as something.
If we take out the hundred marbles we put in the bottle, there is still something, i.e. the air.
If we suck out all the air, then there is nothing in the bottle within the defined context.
Some smart alec may insist there is still 'space' in the bottle, but this is out of the defined context.
So, context is critical.

So, within context defined, nothing is nothing and not-something.
Thus something is something and cannot be nothing.

If you are refer to the ontology Substance Theory,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
there is no-thing-itself or substance-in-itself.
What is a thing is always contingent upon a human context, i.e. a human-based framework and system [FS] as mentioned above, i.e. the conventional or physics FS.

There is no way 'nothing' can be something of substance in an absolute sense.

“There is no way 'nothing' can be something of substance in an absolute sense.“

————

Well there’s no such thing as nothing, so there has to be something, and that something is not a thing, and yet is everything.

Things are concepts known that in and of themselves know nothing.

What’s being pointed to here is knowledge or knowing.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality in that it’s nothing being everything or something.

I have these ideas of unconscious states. I could call it "not existing". But i give this non-existence different labels like "birth", "sleep", etc. They come in all sorts of different conceptual labels.

For example, I can imagine a moment when i weren't born yet. Something very similar happens when i go to sleep, as in, it seems like the world vanishes, then i appear again. It really is like being born again everyday.

It also becomes weirder when i consider that i and the world were born at the same time. They're both the same occurrence. I can't be born without a world to be born into. Similarly, i can't wake up without a world to wake up into. The world is my birth, and my wakefulness.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 9:37 am “There is no way 'nothing' can be something of substance in an absolute sense.“

————

Well there’s no such thing as nothing, so there has to be something, and that something is not a thing, and yet is everything.

Things are concepts known that in and of themselves know nothing.

What’s being pointed to here is knowledge or knowing.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality in that it’s nothing being everything or something.

I have these ideas of unconscious states. I could call it "not existing". But i give this non-existence different labels like "birth", "sleep", etc. They come in all sorts of different conceptual labels.

For example, I can imagine a moment when i weren't born yet. Something very similar happens when i go to sleep, as in, it seems like the world vanishes, then i appear again. It really is like being born again everyday.

It also becomes weirder when i consider that i and the world were born at the same time. They're both the same occurrence. I can't be born without a world to be born into. Similarly, i can't wake up without a world to wake up into. The world is my birth, and my wakefulness.

For example, I can imagine a moment when i weren't born yet. Something very similar happens when i go to sleep, as in, it seems like the world vanishes, then i appear again. It really is like being born again everyday.


You can imagine i.e. put into an image of empirical things.
But the "I before birth" is not something that is empirical, thus cannot be imagined.
You can nevertheless think of the "I before birth" as a thought, but you cannot reify this idea as something real at all.

It is the same with your conscious self.
There is no 'your conscious self' that exists while you as asleep.
When one sleeps [normal] it is just a physical body with activities.
When one awakes, consciousness gradually emerges.

Bundle Theory of the Self: Hume argued that there is no persistent, unchanging self. Instead, he proposed that what we call the "self" is merely a bundle or collection of different perceptions that flow and change over time. [a bundle of 'human' activities]
No Substantial Self: He rejected the idea of a unified, continuous self that persists unchanged throughout one's life. Hume claimed we cannot observe or experience such an entity through introspection.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-theor ... ry-of-mind

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality in that it’s nothing being everything or something.

Knowledge does point to something as contingent upon a framework and system, e.g. scientific knowledge points to scientific things; these scientific things is something not nothing.

There is no "nothing being something" that is beyond scientific FS things or any other FS things.

Whatever is a thing, it is contingent upon a human-based FS.

There is nothing being something in the context of dual understanding which is a knowing. Which can only be born of knowledge.

And the same applies for the two way mirror. There is something being nothing.

In a now I know me, now I don’t sense, or now you see me, now you don’t.

Conscious unconsciousness.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:26 pm There is nothing being something in the context of dual understanding which is a knowing. Which can only be born of knowledge.

And the same applies for the two way mirror. There is something being nothing.

In a now I know me, now I don’t sense, or now you see me, now you don’t.

Conscious unconsciousness.

There is no nothing-in-itself.

In the mirror's case, "There is something being nothing" which this whole point is something in reference to a two way mirror.

Whatever you postulate as 'nothing' is ultimately something as contingent to a human-based framework and system.

So, there is "something out of nothing" because you or a collective-of-subjects said so.

There is no nothing-in-itself or something-in-itself without a reference to subjects or humans.
There is no thing [or nothing] that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

The most significant is 'there is no God' [or moon] that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 6:26 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:26 pm There is nothing being something in the context of dual understanding which is a knowing. Which can only be born of knowledge.

And the same applies for the two way mirror. There is something being nothing.

In a now I know me, now I don’t sense, or now you see me, now you don’t.

Conscious unconsciousness.

There is no nothing-in-itself.

In the mirror's case, "There is something being nothing" which this whole point is something in reference to a two way mirror.

Whatever you postulate as 'nothing' is ultimately something as contingent to a human-based framework and system.

So, there is "something out of nothing" because you or a collective-of-subjects said so.

There is no nothing-in-itself or something-in-itself without a reference to subjects or humans.
There is no thing [or nothing] that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

The most significant is 'there is no God' [or moon] that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not

I see what you are saying and agree with you.

In the context of there is nothing outside of this present moment that is something conceptualised in its human conception.