The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[Dontaskme]

It's not really absurd when you think about it deeply enough...because if you exist, you wouldn't know that unless you knew you couldn't possibly not -exist...and since you know you cannot not exist, what makes you know you can? who is it that knows they do not not exist, but knows they do exist? and how can you be absolutely certain you exist, how would you know that? ..you'd first have to know you don't exist, in order to know you do exist, so how are you going to know you don't exist? ....how can you know you don't exist, if you've never not existed....?

Is this an example of deep thinking?

In comparison to surface level thinking, then yes.

[Arising_uk]

Contradictions are complimentary opposites. They need to exist mutually so as to know anything at all.

Okay, and what we know is that the situation is false and a contradiction therefore does not exist as it is an impossibility.

There is no such thing as a thing except as concept.. no thing or nothing is not a concept, so for a thing to be, it has to be a concept, except there is such thing as a THING...so where does the concept of a thing come from? ....answer that then?

It comes from the fact that if there were no states of affairs or things you'd have nothing to conceptualize about. Kant called it the Noumena and I call it the external world.

You would never know what regress is without also knowing progress, so what's it to be, which way are we heading, back or forward...you choose....or is this not moving anywhere? if it is moving one way or the other, which way is it going? have you got any ideas on that one?

If it's all 'ideas' then you have to have something thinking the ideas that you are not thinking, I guess you have a 'God' in there somewhere but then that 'God' must be an idea, so whose idea? Infinite regress.

It's not really absurd when you think about it deeply enough...because if you exist, you wouldn't know that unless you knew you couldn't possibly not -exist...and since you know you cannot not exist, what makes you know you can? who is it that knows they do not not exist, but knows they do exist? and how can you be absolutely certain you exist, how would you know that? ..you'd first have to know you don't exist, in order to know you do exist, so how are you going to know you don't exist? ....how can you know you don't exist, if you've never not existed....?

I didn't say I've never not existed, I know I haven't existed because I understand Biology and because of this I also know that there's an amazingly high probability that I'll not exist in the future, I know I exist because by definition just raising the issue means I do and I don't need to know that I haven't existed to know this. All I've said is that nothing cannot exist as if it did it'd not be nothing.

We are making comparison....so the question is which one is true, and how would you know the difference?

To be honest I'm lost as to what you are making a comparison with?

The external world is the projection of conciousness. Any thing projected cannot know it is a projection because there is no such thing as a thing, except as concept...so where does the concept come from? does it come from the projector or the projection?

No, the external world is the external world, how we perceive it is a product of the kind of body with senses that we have but this does not mean that it is dependent upon our existence as it is patently not.

The same one who is beating your heart, breathing your breath in and out.

And that would be?

The point is, you say you have consciousness, but you don't know what it is, and that is the point, how can you know something when you don't know what it is? if you know what consciousness is then please explain what it is here on this forum?

Which 'consciousness' are you talking about? You mean conscious of the world or self-conscious about being conscious?

[Dontaskme]

It comes from the fact that if there were no states of affairs or things you'd have nothing to conceptualize about. Kant called it the Noumena and I call it the external world.

Noumena can't be called, since it is not known, ...only phenomena is known. So can't call what is not known ...something known.

To be honest I'm lost as to what you are making a comparison with?

How do you know you don't exist as opposed to you do exist, how would you tell the difference?

[Dontaskme]

All I've said is that nothing cannot exist as if it did it'd not be nothing.

But don't you see, by saying nothing cannot exist, you are creating the exact opposite, so it can exist as the opposite of something.
In reality there is no contradiction or opposites.

If nothing cannot exist, then neither can something, do you see?

Remember, reality is not a thing to be known, things are concepts ideas arising from nothing.

If you do not think concepts arise from nothing, then where do they come from? if you say the mind, then where does the mind come from.

If you say infinite regress, that means from memory, so that brings us to the conclusion that nothing lives, so nothing does actually exist.

[Dontaskme]

The same one who is beating your heart, breathing your breath in and out.

And that would be?

Don't ask me?

Your the one asking the question, not me.

Ask the one who want's to know?

The question is born out of the answer you already have else the question wouldn't even arise.

[Obvious Leo]

Don't ask me?

I already made this decision.

[Dontaskme]

Which 'consciousness' are you talking about? You mean conscious of the world or self-conscious about being conscious?

I mean the one who is conscious of being conscious...who or what is that?

[Dontaskme]

No, the external world is the external world, how we perceive it is a product of the kind of body with senses that we have but this does not mean that it is dependent upon our existence as it is patently not.

There is no external world independent of the perceiver. If there was a world out there independently existing, how would that external world know that?

[Dontaskme]

If it's all 'ideas' then you have to have something thinking the ideas that you are not thinking, I guess you have a 'God' in there somewhere but then that 'God' must be an idea, so whose idea? Infinite regress.

There is thought, that is known, but from where does a thought arise? have you seen a thought arising? have you seen the thinker from where thoughts arise?

So, infinite regress must mean there is no thinker of thought, and yet thoughts do arise, so perhaps all things are just thought? which are unseen and non-locatable ...so just who is here, except consciousness...and yet there is no one here to know what that is, so I guess that means everything is consciousness which means no one is conscious...because everything is the same as nothing, since they are complimentary opposites mutually exclusive /inclusive.

[Obvious Leo]

No, the external world is the external world, how we perceive it is a product of the kind of body with senses that we have but this does not mean that it is dependent upon our existence as it is patently not.

There is no external world independent of the perceiver. If there was a world out there independently existing, how would that external world know that?

You're confusing two entirely different concepts. The existence of a reality external to the observer of it is not contingent on the existence of such an observer. However defining the pattern of organisation of such an external reality is something which only an observer of it is able to do. This is the central plank of the Kantian metaphysic and it is also what is meant in physics by "collapsing a wave function".

[Greta]

If in the beginning there was nothing, there could never be anything,

If a state of nothingness is unalterable how can it preclude everything?

I remember similar conversations on the other forum. The idea is that The Void is not bound by any limitations and therefore has infinite potential to produce anything. Yet what could it produce that would not be immediately subsumed by the nothingness - on a reality that grows faster than the nothingness can consume it, presumably - at least for a while.

It's basically another cyclic idea - a nothing/something loop. In a way, it's not miles from Penrose's idea*, just it has a conceptual problem - "nothing" is never quite nothing.

The "big freeze"* is portrayed as a model of total decay into nothingness. According to the first law of thermodynamics, however, all the energy of today's universe (and the formative universe, for that matter) will always be present. The place won't empty out, just that the subatomic particles will be too distant to organise. The first law suggests that something has always existed and always will.

Nothing personal Greta, but this reasoning, I see as originating from minds not capable of fathoming "nothing." In other words, that fact that "something" tries to contemplate "nothing" contaminates the logic, which is also something.

Actually, even though you and others seem to ignore it, something forever, ad infinitum is just as perplexing as nothing. So My words still sand "IF" there was nothing, nothing would eternally be, as nothing cannot generate something. Only something can do that.

I can imagine nothing, and it hurts my head to do so, as I just can't quite see it, because it's nothing. Likewise, my head hurts in exactly the same way, when I contemplate space/time or anything else as if it's forever, ad infinitum, because I just can't visualize that either. Neither one seems possible. Which is why many astrophysicists have turned to god as the originator of the big bang. They just can't see something from nothing or something eternal. Both possibilities baffle them, an end to their reasoning.

My bottom line is that it appears that what we perceive as "nothing" is not empty, just empty of whatever we can perceive.

Yes, infinity is as unimaginable as nothing, but the alternative to infinite reality seems impossible. A bounded universe? Bounded within what?

The mere existence of something renders the concept of nothingness relative. In truth, parts of reality are simply more densely packed than others - "something" is everywhere. The "thinned out" parts are what we call "nothing".

[Obvious Leo]

Greta. You raise one of the more ludicrous metaphysical conundrums highlighted by the notion of an "expanding space" which bounds our universe. The notion of expansion is exclusively a spatial one so to ask the question "Into what is the universe expanding?" is a perfectly valid one. It can't be expanding into nothing because nothing does not exist so is space then expanding into another space? If so what is the origin of this unobservable space?

[Arising_uk]

The big-bang is not what you think it is....what is meant by the original big-bang is the birth of opposites within seamless infinity. ...

Is it? I thought it just a hypothesis from Cosmology based upon the discoveries of the CMB and that all the galaxies are apparently receding from us no matter where we look, with the hypothesis being that it all must have started from a point. No idea what this 'seamless infinity' infinity is?

When nothing is being everything...

No idea what this means?

[Arising_uk]

Noumena can't be called, since it is not known, ...only phenomena is known. So can't call what is not known ...something known. ...

You can if it means, 'cannot be known but can be metaphysically inferred'.

How do you know you don't exist as opposed to you do exist, how would you tell the difference?

Because if I didn't exist the question wouldn't arise.

[Arising_uk]

But don't you see, by saying nothing cannot exist, you are creating the exact opposite, so it can exist as the opposite of something. ...

"Nothing" as a thing cannot exist, what can exist is existence without a specific thing being there, say me for instance. So there is a no-thing or a negation but there is always something there.

In reality there is no contradiction or opposites.

There are loads of opposites, I'm typing with two of them but I agree that a contradiction is a logical impossibility in the world.

If nothing cannot exist, then neither can something, do you see?

Not if you mean a nothing with no-things.

Remember, reality is not a thing to be known, things are concepts ideas arising from nothing.

Not so, they arise from there being an external world or the noumena if you prefer.

If you do not think concepts arise from nothing, then where do they come from?

From there being an external world.

if you say the mind, then where does the mind come from.

From being this particular body with senses and there being two of them with a language.

If you say infinite regress, that means from memory, so that brings us to the conclusion that nothing lives, so nothing does actually exist.

No idea what you mean here?