Is nothingness possible?
Asked by
doggywuv (
1041
)
August 26th, 2009
I keep thinking that an absence of anything at all is just plain absurd and impossible. What do you think?
And I want to link to a related page, that’s very complicated and that I have yet to understand: http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
42 Answers
Nothing exists. Be sure of that.
Even nothing is something.
Nothing is a comparative term. I don’t believe it is possible. I’m not to keen on metaphysics, though…
Absolutely. I have been told that I have achieved it several times, by folks I choose not to hang with anymore. Less is more, I guess. More space.
Nothing and something are words that represent concepts. Can the concept of “nothingness” be achieved? Ever been under anesthesia?
You mean “is nothingness possible” as a general, metaphysical, philosophical, conceptual way, or in a real world, real existence kind of way?
Sure, nothingness is possible philosophically whether or not zero presupposes all other numbers (per the article). Philosophically, nothing may have existed before something existed. Philosophically nothingness is pure and empty.
In the real world, the universe is rarely pure and never empty. There is no nothingness on this plane of existence. with the possible exception of the space between Ozzie Osborne’s ears
Try reading Sartre’s long book on Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (L’Ëtre et le néant) source
Here’e the really helpful first sentence of the analysis:
“Being and Nothingness is clearly influenced by Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time, though Sartre was profoundly skeptical of any measure by which humanity could achieve a kind of personal state of fulfillment comparable to the hypothetical Heideggerian re-encounter with Being.”
Who cares? Don’t you have real problems to be worrying about?
Were you looking at the quote in the question I posted below? That was Heidegger, from Being and Time. He meant nothingness as in the absence of significations. But to understand that we have to backpedal a bit – he’s really talking about anxiety here, and says that anxiety precipitates Dasein’s Being for it in a rather torturous way. Dasein faces itself as Being-in-the-world, and sees this world as a blank slate, empty of significance. Faced with this nothingness, with the fact of the world as this abyss of meaning, we build into it, frantically trying to make the emptiness of the world calculable. Essentially, he’s talking about the horror of solipsism, though he would never term it that way.
Nothingness is possible. It’s that space between Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson’s ears.
@PerryDolia I mean “nothingness” in the context of philosophy, not in the context of the universe.
@erniefernandez I care, and so do many other curious people. I’m not asking this question because of lack of daily problems, don’t assume that.
Nothing is the basis of everything. Something is actually without existential foundation but dependent upon myriad interdependencies of mental constructs.
@Bluefreedom I have this mental image of Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson standing on opposite sides of a big room, and a tear in the space-time continuum between their heads.
@wildpotato. I’d say that is a pretty accurate image. Descriptive too.
Obviously not as I’m here.
@erniefernandez
Since it is a philosophical problem, the answer to the question, “Is nothingness possible?”
is
“Why not?”
Haven’t you seen “the neverending story”? The nothing definitely exists.
@hug_of_war- I never understood how they could make a couple of sequels to The Neverending Story. I mean it’s “neverending,” right?
Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily; life is but a dream.
And what does anyone think is between all these electrons, neutrons, protons, neutrinos and whatnot? Chocolate-flavoured whipped cream?
@AstroChuck, my interpretation is that each sequel is to be followed by yet another sequel.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Don’t try anything, then determine whether everything has disappeared.
No, it is not possible in our universe at this point in time. There is no place in the universe in which there is no gravitational field, which means there must be a stream of gravitons.
nothing is what exists. it just happens to look like this.
@aprilsimnel We know by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that each elementary particle is a smudge in space that may overlap each other, and extends over an indefinite volume of space depending on how we measure the properties of the particle. There is no ‘between’ these particles, as there is always a certain part of their probability function that is everywhere.
@SeventhSense I must disagree. They are mental constructs designed to describe the universe we live in, but they are far from devoid of substance. It would be remiss of me to say sociology is devoid of substance simply because I do not like it, and the same applies for every other academic pursuit. Theoretical physics has given the world a wealth of valuable knowledge and technologies, most of which people do not realise has come from physics.
Quantum mechanics describes the interaction of sub-atomic particles. This can be applied on larger scales in nanotechnology which offers technologies such as self-washing windows, lighter and stronger construction materials, heat resistant plates for the space shuttle, and nuclear energy.
Many businesses are protected from industrial espionage by their quantum encryption computer systems, which protects countless millions of dollars in intellectual property and many military computer systems. De Broglie’s equations in particular have helped research into using benzine rings as computer storage units, which would make computers far smaller and more powerful than current magnetic and solid state devices. Quantum physics has also provided valuable direction in microprocessor technologies as transistors reach nanometre scales. It also gives us the hope of quantum computing, which will make our current supercomputers instantly obsolete.
This is without even mentioning the profound philosophical implications of theoretical physics. Please, do not assume something you are not interested in and/or know little about is devoid of substance.
@FireMadeFlesh
Please, do not assume something you are not interested in and/or know little about is devoid of substance
And please do not assume that I have little interest in these topics. I just see deeper.
no ‘between’ these particles, as there is always a certain part of their probability function that is everywhere
And I say rather there are no particles. Matter: the idea of particles as well as quarks, sub atomic particles, leptons and on and on has no basis itself in anything other than a mental construct and agreement. Infinitely they recede and infinitely the expand the closer we get and the further they appear. Tell me the beginning of a particle or it’s end and I will show you that beyond the scope of your projected and highly subjective conceptions are nothing but creations.
The universe is not bound by subjective ideas. Does the universe known and unknown have its origins in biology, chemistry, physics, and any other scientific classification? Of course not. We simply project upon it our own image.
I can decide the framework of any idea based upon an agreed upon or subjective border within a code of my choosing. And if it is an agreed upon code by the masses it is no more real and has no more substance. If I type words upon the page or call them pigs or pipes they have no reality. This does not describe a word or make the idea of a word real. It is a mental construct and only that.
All is devoid of substance and all originated from the void. All will return to the void and this gives little comfort to the finite mind which would make distinctions. Life will not contract for the sake of classification nor be compartmentalized. The idea of a cause and effect is without basis itself having no original cause and infinite causes and effects. As if there was a linear continuum that threads throughout life in the first place. There is no independent arising and any attempt to distinguish such is futile and as laughable as imagining the universe is a large room with quantifiable borders.
Regardless of how comfortable it makes us and our world to do so.
With that said I’m all for clean windows even if the glass doesn’t exist.:)
P.S.-As per Quantum Mechanics, maybe you should see my posted link.^
@SeventhSense I do not have the time to read every entry in every thread, so inevitably I missed your earlier ones. I apologise for my assumption.
I find metaphysical discussions on the nature of reality to be similar to how you seem to view QM – interesting, but ultimately hollow. Our assumption of external reality is unfalsifiable, but it is the most practical and applicable construct. If there was no external reality, and our construct of reality was simply a mental projection, what would we do about it? How would our interaction with this construct of reality differ from our current interaction? My guess is very little.
Whether it describes an external reality or a projected construct within my mind, quantum mechanics has practical applications that I mentioned. Matter is not affected by the way we describe it (although it is affected by how we measure it), but our ability to describe matter and its interactions aid our ability to manipulate matter for our own devices.
However at the most fundamental level, nothing exists. Mass is the inverse of its gravitational field, and thanks to Thermodynamics we are headed for a state of nothingness in which event horizons bound photons of a Planck energy, and no further interactions are possible since the photons are unable to communicate over the event horizons.
It is possible to argue that the universe is a mental construct, which brings back the argument of the structure of consciousness, but I find this a rather pointless discussion since we are unable to operate in any reality but that which we have constructed. Just as we cannot verify the existence of our construct as an external entity, we cannot verify the existence of alternatives so we must simply assume the most useful construct.
@FireMadeFlesh
I find this a rather pointless discussion since we are unable to operate in any reality but that which we have constructed
Yet this is the exact point of which masters for ever have differed from mass consciousness and have pointed out how we simply create our construct. And in doing so they also point towards creating more useful constructs. On a quite ordinary level one need only look to many of the most “successful” persons in society to see that they are simply better at manipulating illusions.
There is nothing fixed and permanent including reality. No aim, no end, no goal, no point. A point indicates an agenda. The universe has none it would seem other than to allow for all points.
@SeventhSense I do not disagree with you on any particular point there.
I can’t answer this “why does anything exist” question. It is too big for me :). But what i believe of true nothingness is that this is actually death. Once you die, you go into nothingness. Nothing will mean anything anymore. Nothing will matter.
Let’s take a look at some math and investigate. Let A and B be two sets of three numbers. A = {1,4,9} and B = {3,6,7}. The intersection of A and B? Nothingness. So it’s possible. Quod erat demonstrandum.
@mattbrowne It is possible to construct a ‘most likely’ equation to fit these data sets, since numbers are a tool to describe real phenomena. These equations will intersect at least twice.
You are grouping A and B as single entities, therefore the three numbers you have given must be continuous with each other in some form. Any equation used to approximate a line between these points will suffice for A and B. Since 1<3, 4<6, and 9>7, the lines representing A and B must intersect when A – B changes from negative to positive. The point of intersection will be between your second and third data points, the exact location depending on the equations chosen to represent A and B.
Whether or not you choose further points that do not intersect, numbers are an abstract concept that exist in your thoughts, and are therefore not ‘nothingness’ but are electrical signals contained within your neurons.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
