What is nothing? Empty space is a vacuum, or a void. Nothing is also an idea. And in math, 0 represents nothing, but it's still a number. A number is something; so is an idea. So if nothing is nothing, then is it a word?
(If anyone says that nothing is "the presence of absence", include an explanation.)
(If anyone says that nothing is "the presence of absence", include an explanation.)
How about the absence of presence?
As long as there is someone to think about nothingness, nothing will at least be an idea or a thought. If there is noone left to think, speak or write about it, would this affect nothingness? Well no, of course not; maybe it won't be called anymore by any word, but it will not affect the state, complete void, itself.
Another thought: black holes, if I'm right, absorb almost everything to it's centre, which is supposed to be infinitesimally small; a point in the mathematical sense, which is a location without space. But, although it is so small, the centre of the black hole is so massive that it absorbs even more stuff. So for us, it looks like nothing, while it is indeed very massive. Does it make sense to bring that here? I don't know, it just crossed my mind..
I think nothing can't be actualy real. Like for example when someone says what do you see? and you reply "nothing" you are always looking at something. So my definition of nothing is something that isn't worth looking at and is therefore deemed as nothing.
True nothing is an unstable states which can't exist in reality. Interestingly enough this addresses that tired question "why is there something instead of nothing".
We can define nothing using set theory. This is what Russel and Whitehead did in Principia Mathematica (granted they were using it to define the number 0, but this will still work).
So, since there is nothing to which we refer when we trying to refer to "nothing", we are talking about an empty set. And we can define this set quite easily: its members consist of all things that are not identical to themselves. Since there are no such members, the set is empty. This also explain how we can refer to "nothing" because we are referring to the set, not the members within the set (of which there are none). There are some more contemporary (and much more co9mplex) definitions of "nothing", but I think this 100-year old definition still works just fine.
Hah well...If you want to see nothing, just don't type anything and press submit, it says you are the last poster, but when eyou go into the thread there is no new information, no name, nothing changed. That's nothing
Hah well...If you want to see nothing, just don't type anything and press submit, it says you are the last poster, but when eyou go into the thread there is no new information, no name, nothing changed. That's nothing
Really? It's still a post.
This is forum, not a answers website.
How does this spark any discussion that is actually useful at all? Go Google it.
So now all topics have to spark useful discussion? What is useful? Maybe you might not find it useful, but someone else will.
So, since there is nothing to which we refer when we trying to refer to "nothing", we are talking about an empty set. And we can define this set quite easily: its members consist of all things that are not identical to themselves. Since there are no such members, the set is empty. This also explain how we can refer to "nothing" because we are referring to the set, not the members within the set (of which there are none). There are some more contemporary (and much more co9mplex) definitions of "nothing", but I think this 100-year old definition still works just fine.
I like this explanation, but if we're referring to the set, it's still a set. Even if it is an empty one, it's still a set.
I like this explanation, but if we're referring to the set, it's still a set. Even if it is an empty one, it's still a set.
When I say that we refer to "nothing", I take it that it is a conceptual reference. That's why I use the scare quotes - it is a conceptual referent to the word "nothing" rather than actual referent. Take the phrase "That tree right there." In this case, there is a member of the class of trees to which that statement refers. We can define it in a number of different ways, but we are referring to a specific member of a set. Now we could also refer to the set of deciduous trees, or the set of the trees in my backyard. Here, we have a conceptual referent. There is no one "thing" we're talking about - we're talking about the set itself. But it's our conceptual understanding of the set that allows us to understand the members of the set. It's how we can understand that the set of trees in my backyard may include members of the set of all deciduous trees - but it would not exhaust the set of all deciduous trees. It's also important to note than many sets to not share the properties of their member. So the set of trees in my backyard is not itself a tree. This may seem a silly point to bring up, but it explains how an empty set can still be a "thing" (don't want to get bogged down here) although the members of the set are not.
To sum up, if we're talking about referrents (the things to which we refer) then we can't refer to nothing. There will not be anything, by definition, to which we can refer. But we can still understand the concept if we understand the conceptual referent - the empty set.
what is nihilism? i've heard the word before but i dont remember what it means...oh right the people that believed that they had to destroy everything to rebuild a nation.
nothing isn't comprehensible as the idea tries to give the nothing a value describing nothing is impossible. we can try to rename it and describe it's characteristics but what characteristics does it have? the answer is none. the only way to describe nothing is to go through everything that makes something and say it doesn't have any of these.
