The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

[SpheresOfBalance]

Absolute nothingness may not exist in nature except for the human brain which seems to have no problem with it.

Sorry dubious, but your statement was not very well thought out. Nothingness precludes everything, even nature.

Is this an example of a well thought out statement? If so it contradicts your earlier statement:
No, it contradicts your understanding, that's all.

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

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

By definition! There would be nothing to cause an effect! Can't get something from nothing, Leo!

[Obvious Leo]

By definition! There would be nothing to cause an effect! Can't get something from nothing, Leo!

I agree. Something cannot miraculously spring from nothing, therefore nothingness is an abstraction with no analogue in the physically real world. Nothing and something cannot coexist.

What I can't understand is how you can make an argument out of nothing because nobody has claimed otherwise.

[SpheresOfBalance]

By definition! There would be nothing to cause an effect! Can't get something from nothing, Leo!

I agree. Something cannot miraculously spring from nothing, therefore nothingness is an abstraction with no analogue in the physically real world. Nothing and something cannot coexist.
No Shit!

What I can't understand is how you can make an argument out of nothing because nobody has claimed otherwise.

Are you deaf dumb and blind? LOOK AT THE TOPIC!!!
Here I'll help you:

The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever

Here's a clue, "Impossibility" and "ever."

[Obvious Leo]

Then who the fuck are you arguing with which requires such an irrational invective? It seems that the only thing which can spring from nothing is your determination to make an arsehole of yourself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Then who the fuck are you arguing with which requires such an irrational invective? It seems that the only thing which can spring from nothing is your determination to make an arsehole of yourself.

Because you say so, who gives a flying fuck what you think moron! I speak of what mankind can and cannot know, that's the point! In the absence of the complete picture, he makes irrational statements based upon his ignorance alone, as if they are necessarily definitive, shit for brains.

[Obvious Leo]

That'll do me for for now, SOB. The comedic value of a troll dissipates very quickly.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That'll do me for for now, SOB. The comedic value of a troll dissipates very quickly.

Says the self stroking moron poser!

Run and hide bitch!

OR

We can absolutely stop with the immature name calling, needless condescending BS and have an actual adult debate. Though I believe you fear taking me on, though I could be wrong...


Either way is fine with me.

[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.

[Obvious Leo]

"nothing" is never quite nothing.

No. Even the metaphysically unschooled, such as Larry Krauss, isn't willing to make a statement quite as absurd as this.

The first law suggests that something has always existed and always will.

The first law of thermodynamics is actually a statement of metaphysical first principle rather than a "law of physics", as physicists are generally disposed to use the term, but as a proposition it nevertheless has a law-like quality to it which must necessarily be central to the methodology of science. "Ex nihilo, nihil fit" is an ancient and revered principle in applied metaphysics and in the absence of a causal agent which lies external to physical reality itself it must be assumed as an a priori truth. Merely positing the existence of such an external causal agent because no coherent theory currently exists for a self-causal universe does not reflect either a scientific or a philosophical stance.

To put it more simply either the universe has always existed or it hasn't and if it hasn't then there's fuck-all more to talk about because once we claim that it hasn't we immediately define it as unknowable, rendering both science and philosophy meaningless.

[Greta]

"nothing" is never quite nothing.

No. Even the metaphysically unschooled, such as Larry Krauss, isn't willing to make a statement quite as absurd as this.

Actually, Lawrence Krauss has said almost those exact words and certainly implied that same meaning. It's very simple. Scientists once thought that space was empty and then they found out that it wasn't. You have misunderstood me. I've maintained that notions of nothingness appear to be either theoretical or relative, not grounded in reality.

[Obvious Leo]

You're right, I did misunderstand you. I meant that even Krauss doesn't accept the concept of nothingness as a valid one and if even Larry can't buy it then nobody should.

[Obvious Leo]

Greta. You know perfectly well that I regard the notion of the physicality of the Euclidean space as a metaphysical absurdity so we're in complete agreement that such a space cannot possibly be empty, be it a physical one or purely a mathematical one. There are a trillion trillion stars in the cosmos so all of "space" is at least being bathed in a continuous stream of photons, not to mention a host of various matter particles whizzing around almost as quickly.

[Dontaskme]

Reality is whole.

There is no one to touch reality directly. Reality cannot be approached; full stop.

The whole can however be felt; but only a part of it...another contradiction I know....


The idea that reality as a whole can be separated into many parts is the contradiction; so what? nothing wrong with this, since it's an unavoidable phenomena.


It's self-evidently obvious that reality is whole; the contradiction arises within the mind as mental construct, which again is just another thought.

For example; there is no such thing as a thing. A thing is a word...what is a word but a transient sound appearing and disappearing.

Same goes for seeing a thing is actually there; who sees the thing? ok,seeing sees it, but what is seeing? have you seen the seer, once again seeing like sound is transient...close your eyes and the assumed thing disappears.

So then you may say the thing is still there when the eyes are closed, this is true, but this time you only know it is there because you can feel it.... via the sense of touch, touch the object and it is felt, but once again who is the feeling, and where does the feeler go when the feeling goes, like when you stop touching it?

So in this sense, things have no actually reality in and of them selves. They do not exist without the senses, that which is intangible gives the appearance of a tangible thing existing...but this is all illusion appearing as real.

The senses have no actually reality or permanent location, they are appearances, appearing and disappearing.

No thing can split the whole. And is why Nothing is the same as Everything.

Nothing is Everything.

Everything is Nothing.

There is no joining line between two things, simply because there is no such thing as a thing.

Thinking cannot reach the no thing of nothingness without creating the exact opposite in the exact same moment.

The existence of opposites provides a meaning to a word. The word by itself is devoid of any meaning without the presence of its opposite, for example; good is known because of its opposite bad, otherwise what good is could never be known. The opposite is a word as well, which gets its meaning from the word it gives meaning to, which is nevertheless without a meaning by itself. Therefore, since opposites are in everyday life, it only means that the quantum nature of meanings is a word with its opposite in the same moment. This implies that the meaning which you do not want is also present in the meaning that you do want, for example right or wrong.

[Dontaskme]

I totally love this idea, as it too is a vision of mine, and well worth the constant ponder, insomuch as we can't know the absolute, we can only know the illusory nature of existence, so thanks.

Yes, I thought it was exciting. This is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ

Thanks for the video.

Have you seen this one.

The quantum nature of consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

[Arising_uk]

I'm puzzled, why the need for the Maths when Logic is enough? That is, there cannot be nothing as if it existed it would not be nothing.