The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Dontaskme]

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.

You are the absolute and is why you cannot know it. It's an oxymoron. Who can witness I but the I ..take away one I and what's left is I

As for evidence, the proof is in the pudding ..read my thoughts here.... viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19259

Art is nature. Nature is artificial my dear.

I am the consummate artist the canvas upon which I paint my dream.

The Artist is not in the picture. The picture is in the Artist.



“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Uncle Albert.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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.

Indeed. One has to ask how can you encounter nothing?

Obviously in a relative sense, you can find yourself at the end of a queue for Lasagne only to find the last slice has been taken and so there is Nothing of the Lasagne left for you, But the empty plate still implies Lasagne, and still contains the space and the air where you want the Lasagne to be.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
Wrong, just because you say its so, doesn't necessarily mean it is.


Conde Lucanor.. simply said that nonexistence is impossible,which is correct.
No he didn't and no it's not! He said nothing can't exist, which is foolish as nothing surely implies nonexistence. It's like saying an ice-cream cone can't exist in my hand if I don't pick one up, utter repetitive nonsense!

But that does not imply that because nonexistence is impossible.. it must always exist...no one can possibly know that either do you see?
No, it's you that can't see! Nonexistence is not impossible, "here" there is existence, however you can't possibly know about "there," because you're a puny human that can't even get past his own planets moon, let alone circumnavigate the entire universe. While the human animal is puny, so is his knowledge! At this stage of human capability, man only "believes" he knows things that are bigger than he is, which has no necessary bearing on the actual (absolute) universal truth of those bigger things or non-things.


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.
Duh!! While EXISTENCE IS, NON-EXISTENCE ISN'T! So what, we're defining existence and non-existence. A definition of some human concept doesn't necessarily disprove every thing or lack thereof.


No one can know what or who they ARE...but they can know what they ARE NOT...
Utter nonsense! One extreme of a dichotomy surely defines the other extreme.

but who even knows that is the one burning question?
Here the burning question is, "why do you believe you know anything?" As it's certainly not apparent.

[SpheresOfBalance]

By definition, nothingness is nonexistence; not being.

So who would know that?
I've already shown that knowledge is dependent upon being, while being is not dependent upon knowledge. Please pay attention.

surely to know that there has to be something existing to know such an idea?
Again knowledge is independent of 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.

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're having a serious problem understanding that knowledge and being are independent. OK, here you go. Before this solar system existed, but after it's would be constituents existed, there were no humans, thus no knowledge, however things still were.


You are the one being a fool talking to another poster like that.
I believe I've just proven otherwise! You're the fool for not thinking further than your own nose!


Just to remind YOU... the meaning of the word NOTHINGNESS is known by the general human consensus as NON EXISTENT
Exactly! Now you got it!


..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.
To a buffoon, it would surely seem so, so you would surely make it seem!


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

It would seem you're caught in the swirling vortex of your ignorance. Of course I won't hold that against you, as we all were once there, and relative to other bits of knowledge, we still are.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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?

Those questions were rhetorical. But of course you prove my point in actually having the nerve to answer them, as all you can spout is conjecture, in the sea of your ignorance!

[SpheresOfBalance]

By definition, nothingness is nonexistence; not being.

Nothing is not evident.
HC, you've already proven time and time again that there are a great many things not evident to your mind. As if your mind is necessarily the yardstick with which all others must be measured. Foolish to say the least, devoid of understanding philosophy.

Which is not the state of affairs.
Not the state of this particular affair.

And can never be evident,
You, like D.A.M, are confused to believe that existence is necessarily contingent upon knowledge.

nor can it be the state of affairs.
Your logic here is invalid!

Your question could not even exist.
Whether my question could or could not exist bears no weight on the subject at hand.

If that is not the very epitome of impossible then please tell me why not.
Because you confuse mans knowledge with existence. While mans knowledge is contingent upon his existence, existence is not contingent upon mans knowledge, likewise, neither is nonexistence. You, as puny as any other man, believe this universe is the only container or non container of things or non things. Just because you lack the ability to fathom such things, doesn't mean they necessarily can't be the case. Show me a Tesseract, a one dimensional string or the 11 dimensions contained within string theory. Show me an actual black hole, a graviton, a quark or a boson.

[Dontaskme]

You're having a serious problem understanding that knowledge and being are independent. OK, here you go. Before this solar system existed, but after it's would be constituents existed, there were no humans, thus no knowledge, however things still were.

It is known that existence is...but the knower is illusory.

[Dalek Prime]

What a load of horseshit. Before I was created, I was nonexistent. I get that you can argue that physical nothingness is impossible, but don't confuse this with no consciousness, which is the nothing of the observer. Here you're just wrong. And why most don't appreciate the subtleties of antinatalism. I just don't get where exactly your blind spots are, that you don't get this.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What a load of horseshit. Before I was created, I was nonexistent. I get that you can argue that physical nothingness is impossible, but don't confuse this with no consciousness, which is the nothing of the observer. Here you're just wrong. And why most don't appreciate the subtleties of antinatalism. I just don't get where exactly your blind spots are, that you don't get this.

there was no you, but the shit of which you are comprised was already in existence, and when you die and rot away the shit of which you are comprised will dissipate.
In fact the shit of which you are comprised changes everyday. You do not possess a single atom in your body that you had seven years ago, except maybe your teeth; but even they grow and fade, depositing new calcium and flouride from the inside to the outside, continually wearing away.

Nutters want to tell you that some part of what makes you, you, persists; this is just wishful thinking. They are also going to rot and die. Things come to be and things pass away. What makes you, yourself is the organisation of matter for a temporary period struggling against the inevitability of death and decay.

But you shall never know nothing, and being nothing is a contradiction in terms.

[Dalek Prime]

I knew nothing before my creation, and after, probably the same. But yes, clearly there was, nor will be, a 'me' that 'knows nothing'. 'Nothing' ever knows of anything, or nothing.

[Dontaskme]

Nutters want to tell you that some part of what makes you, you, persists; this is just wishful thinking. They are also going to rot and die. Things come to be and things pass away. What makes you, yourself is the organisation of matter for a temporary period struggling against the inevitability of death and decay.

There is no ''You''

Any reference point is simply a movement of thought pointing to emptiness...thinking it is pointing to something. All somethings are actually nothing.

[Greta]

What a load of horseshit. Before I was created, I was nonexistent. I get that you can argue that physical nothingness is impossible, but don't confuse this with no consciousness, which is the nothing of the observer. Here you're just wrong. And why most don't appreciate the subtleties of antinatalism. I just don't get where exactly your blind spots are, that you don't get this.

there was no you, but the shit of which you are comprised was already in existence, and when you die and rot away the shit of which you are comprised will dissipate.
In fact the shit of which you are comprised changes everyday. You do not possess a single atom in your body that you had seven years ago, except maybe your teeth; but even they grow and fade, depositing new calcium and flouride from the inside to the outside, continually wearing away.

Nutters want to tell you that some part of what makes you, you, persists; this is just wishful thinking. They are also going to rot and die. Things come to be and things pass away. What makes you, yourself is the organisation of matter for a temporary period struggling against the inevitability of death and decay.

But you shall never know nothing, and being nothing is a contradiction in terms.

Nice, although the neurons that we have, failing brain damage, are with us for life, but apparently all atoms turn over within a period of years: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ular-basis

I like to think that we were all present at the big bang/inflation in some way, and now we are animals rather than portions of trillion degree plasma. I personally see it as a significant improvement but not all here would agree.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Nutters want to tell you that some part of what makes you, you, persists; this is just wishful thinking. They are also going to rot and die. Things come to be and things pass away. What makes you, yourself is the organisation of matter for a temporary period struggling against the inevitability of death and decay.

There is no ''You''.

Then who the fuck is going to answer your stupid post?

[Dontaskme]

There is no ''You''.

Then who the fuck is going to answer your stupid post?

The mind /brain /body instrument....there is no person inside a brain, the last time I looked (joke!)


Interactions are illusory thoughts in the mind and not an actuality in any moment of daily life. The moment in life just is, and man is unable to make the present moment in which he is, because the moment is always there so that man could be in it.

In daily life, several movements of the body happen every moment, and man is neither conscious of these movements nor do these movements appear as interactions to man. This implies that in any moment in daily life there is ONLY a movement and man does not interact in any moment of life.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're having a serious problem understanding that knowledge and being are independent. OK, here you go. Before this solar system existed, but after it's would be constituents existed, there were no humans, thus no knowledge, however things still were.

It is known that existence is...but the knower is illusory.

Silly!