The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

The only reason nothingness seems impossible is because there seems to be something.
If in fact it seemed there was nothing, something would equally seem impossible.
Which has no necessary bearing on the case at hand, as it would seem the question is still far larger than humanity is capable of reaching.
We cannot currently 'know' that something can't come from nothing, or that nothing can't come from something.
How necessarily complete/incomplete is something or nothing?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yep, by today's standards, of course!
Analytic statements are basic logic. When I point at their existence, you dismiss them, just a few lines away from the statement protesting "invalid logic". Cute.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I was referring to the topic title, have you ever read it?
First you said topic, now you said topic title. According to you, the discussion should limit itself only to the title. That's even cuter.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:No, you just believe them to be mutually exclusive!
How lazy. It would have been interesting that you dealt with an argument to prove that my belief is wrong, but I can easily guess that would have proven to be a very difficult task for you.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:To your finite mind!
Infinite laziness and incompetence I see.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well it's nice to know that all the astrophysicists disagree with you. You know, all those that actually have an education, all those that have a much higher probability of actually knowing.
I think I heard that argument before. Hmm...oh wait, I remember, that's what they said to Copernicus and Galileo. Conventional wisdom, they said.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Humans are far to young to 'know' such things. It would seem that in all your words you fail to understand what 'knowledge' actually is. I seem to be the only one around smart enough to understand that all those dead philosophers ideas are just as antiquated as their bodies.
Yep. All those already dead philosophers that came after the philosophers that conveyed your very same argument of knowledge being limited only to experience. Try to live another 300 years to see if you finally catch up.
Your self centered-ness screams absurdity!
And you crawled back from under your rock to say THAT?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Greta »

I don't believe in nothing.

Nothing does not exist.

There is no evidence for the existence of nothing.

:))))
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme »

Greta wrote:I don't believe in nothing.

Nothing does not exist.

There is no evidence for the existence of nothing.

:))))
And the only evidence for something is the unseen seer of such. :wink:
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Conde Lucanor »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Your self centered-ness screams absurdity!
Too bad you cannot find a logical argument to prove it.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Greta »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Your self centered-ness screams absurdity!
Too bad you cannot find a logical argument to prove it.
All you did is make comments about OP. Hardly self-centred anyway. Damaged goods.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only reason nothingness seems impossible is because there seems to be something.
If in fact it seemed there was nothing, something would equally seem impossible.
Which has no necessary bearing on the case at hand, as it would seem the question is still far larger than humanity is capable of reaching.
We cannot currently 'know' that something can't come from nothing, or that nothing can't come from something.
How necessarily complete/incomplete is something or nothing?
'We' cannot know any-'thing', for 'we' ARE the known 'thing'. Only the known, is known, not the knower of the known, for knower and known are inseparably one.Therefore, there is only one unknowable knower knowing itself. One knows itself as all pervading yet without location or space to fill. The One knows itself as absolute power – absolute presence, yet nothing to effect.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Greta »

Dontaskme wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only reason nothingness seems impossible is because there seems to be something.
If in fact it seemed there was nothing, something would equally seem impossible.
Which has no necessary bearing on the case at hand, as it would seem the question is still far larger than humanity is capable of reaching.
We cannot currently 'know' that something can't come from nothing, or that nothing can't come from something.
How necessarily complete/incomplete is something or nothing?
'We' cannot know any-'thing', for 'we' ARE the known 'thing'. Only the known, is known, not the knower of the known, for knower and known are inseparably one.Therefore, there is only one unknowable knower knowing itself. One knows itself as all pervading yet without location or space to fill. The One knows itself as absolute power – absolute presence, yet nothing to effect.
We know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower, which is unknown to the knower (apart from the parts that knowers know about their known selves) and also don't know other knowers who in turn don't other knowers. The upshot? Nobody knows.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme »

Greta wrote: The upshot? Nobody knows.
No person knows anything. A person is already known in the knowing. Knowing is Once known, therefore anything known cannot know.
A person is known therefore cannot know, a person therefore is a fiction...because knowing is Once known and therefore unknowable.

All known knowledge is a fiction...believed to be real, and is how reality appears to this ONE... aka the Knower.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Greta wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only reason nothingness seems impossible is because there seems to be something.
If in fact it seemed there was nothing, something would equally seem impossible.
Which has no necessary bearing on the case at hand, as it would seem the question is still far larger than humanity is capable of reaching.
We cannot currently 'know' that something can't come from nothing, or that nothing can't come from something.
How necessarily complete/incomplete is something or nothing?
'We' cannot know any-'thing', for 'we' ARE the known 'thing'. Only the known, is known, not the knower of the known, for knower and known are inseparably one.Therefore, there is only one unknowable knower knowing itself. One knows itself as all pervading yet without location or space to fill. The One knows itself as absolute power – absolute presence, yet nothing to effect.
We know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower, which is unknown to the knower (apart from the parts that knowers know about their known selves) and also don't know other knowers who in turn don't other knowers. The upshot? Nobody knows.
I know the knower. If I did not, I'd not know who knew the knowledge and not be sure of any knowledge. But whatever knowledge is, it is the thing that knowledge is. Since I have knowledge I know at least that the knower is the holder of that knowledge. Some knowns are know, some unknowns are unknown, and some unknowns are unknown (These I don't have to worry about - gradually they unfold in time), but there are unknown knowns, and these are the most important to investigate. It takes great efforts, and distant reflection and introspection to unpack those endemic assumptions, but these are the most fruitful areas of study.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Dontaskme wrote:
Greta wrote: The upshot? Nobody knows.
No person knows anything..

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Greta »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
'We' cannot know any-'thing', for 'we' ARE the known 'thing'. Only the known, is known, not the knower of the known, for knower and known are inseparably one.Therefore, there is only one unknowable knower knowing itself. One knows itself as all pervading yet without location or space to fill. The One knows itself as absolute power – absolute presence, yet nothing to effect.
We know that the knower knows what is known but does not know the knower, which is unknown to the knower (apart from the parts that knowers know about their known selves) and also don't know other knowers who in turn don't other knowers. The upshot? Nobody knows.
I know the knower. If I did not, I'd not know who knew the knowledge and not be sure of any knowledge. But whatever knowledge is, it is the thing that knowledge is. Since I have knowledge I know at least that the knower is the holder of that knowledge. Some knowns are known, some unknowns are unknown, and some unknowns are unknown (These I don't have to worry about - gradually they unfold in time), but there are unknown knowns, and these are the most important to investigate. It takes great efforts, and distant reflection and introspection to unpack those endemic assumptions, but these are the most fruitful areas of study.
But how can you know the knower when what the knower knows is not actually known by anyone? (Just ask Kant, he'd know). The knowledge that you, the knower, knows is not actually known because you cannot know if it exists, or if it's just what you think you know exists, since what you know is only what is known and thus non inclusive of unknowns, both of the known and unknown variety.
Dontaskme wrote:
Greta wrote: The upshot? Nobody knows.
No person knows anything. A person is already known in the knowing. Knowing is Once known, therefore anything known cannot know.
A person is known therefore cannot know, a person therefore is a fiction...because knowing is Once known and therefore unknowable.

All known knowledge is a fiction...believed to be real, and is how reality appears to this ONE... aka the Knower.
I don't think a person can necessarily be known in the knowing because the knowing may be unknowing in that, again, known and unknown unknowns may result in us not actually knowing what we think we know.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme »

Hobbes' Choice wrote: HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
I don't know.

I can't know what I do not know. I can only be the knower of what is known in the same instantaneous moment. While what is known is self evident, I cannot find the knower. Therefore, what is self evident is none other than a fiction...aka imagination.

Err..Duh!!!
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme »

Greta wrote:
I don't think a person can necessarily be known in the knowing because the knowing may be unknowing in that, again, known and unknown unknowns may result in us not actually knowing what we think we know.
A person is a concept known...(believed) by no thing...aka this immediate knowing perception. Perception doesn't belong to a thing called person, person is always a concept arising in perception which is not human.It is no thing being everything as known conceptually...as perceived, conceived.

The existential nature of knowledge is a perception, it's an idea... appearing from nowhere. An idea has no exact location, it's as empty as the sky and as free as a bird...it's a fiction. To attach to the concept as if it was actually real is bondage.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Post by Dontaskme »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I know the knower. If I did not, I'd not know who knew the knowledge and not be sure of any knowledge. But whatever knowledge is, it is the thing that knowledge is.

The I doesn't know anything, the I is a concept known ..the conception of I is born of invisible thought..therefore illusory..nothing is here until thought is here, thought arise here in that same ''nothing is here'' that they arise in.. thought is made of the ''nothing nowhere'' they are sourced from.

Nothing is known until the knowing is i/dentified as a thought which becomes the known.
A thought, however, is invisible and the invisible cannot be known. This implies that the known is ONLY the knowing, neither this or that. What you know is known because of what you do not know.

The whole of life for a concept aka a human is built purely upon a fictional reality... knowledge informs illusory reality.. there is no individual knower, therefore, there is no knower. There's just everything aka this absolute knowing.

The I is an experience, there is nothing prior or outside the experience of I ..it is ONE without a second.
Post Reply