I am picking up what you are putting down and agree that there is a distinction, but the parallel still holds. I also would not consider god without a proper ontology, but the definition for nothing while objective does not give us the capability to discern its non/existence.

Technology may help us to create a perfect vacuum, and for 10,000 years perhaps we will think we have one . . . then pow we may find a very weakly interaction field, force, or particle that cannot be "sucked" out of the vacuum chamber ect.

That is why I say it is an argument from ignorance, just like saying that no god can exist, or saying god exists but science will not find him, ie he "lives" in the gaps . . . the idea cannot be disproved.

We may find one day that god and nothing do exist . . . but I am not holding my breath . . .

_____________________________________________________________________

Of course my whole argument is one from ignorance perhaps some arcane interpretation of relativity explains why nothing cannot exist, if so I have not found it lol.

".... but the definition for nothing while objective does not give us the capability to discern its non/existence."


I guess I don't understand your thinking about what 'nothing' is then.

(thats really funny, since nothing is nothing.)

And you seem to be talking about a vacuum. (I don't consider a 'vacuum' to be 'nothing.' as it is an enclosed area or system.

I am talking about a state of existence, not a vacuum with no "things" inside of it as we define "things."

My reasoning is extremely simple. It does not require trying to create a vacuum to see if nothing can remain as nothing. It simply states that if Something exists, nothing cannot.

Something and nothing cannot both occur.

You always try to put everything inside of a laboratory experiment to observe it. Even 'nothing in a vacuum. I actually find that funny.

MY HERO!!!

And batman too!

Well, I find arbitrarily deciding what is real to be funny.

This is the typical kind of semantic mumbo jumbo I expect from philosophers. Heidegger is attempting to treat nothing as though it is a thing.

Nothing is a word that literally mean no thing. It represents a condition not a thing in and of itself.

If we could find a closed area of space that did not contain a thing then that area could be said to 'contain' nothing. Again not to imply that nothing is a thing, but rather that it is simply a condition that desribes the state of a particular area or 'space' in question.

We used to believe that in an area where a complete vacuum exists no thing would exist, and therefore a complete vacuum could be said to contain, 'nothing' (a condition).

What we have found is that the fabric of spacetime cannot be drained entirely of all things. It is simply impossible to create a condition within spacetime where no thing exist.

Even our theories of a "Big Bang" (and we have several different theories of how a Big Bang might have gotten started), all presume quantum effects to have preexisted. Quantum effects can hardly be called no thing.

Jeanniebean seems to be happy by looking around and saying, "Things exist, therefore there can be no question about it."

Well that's obvious. But it still boggles the mind how that condition could have ever 'come to be'.

Of course, we could take time out of the equation and just say that it's always been like this. But let's face it, the concept of eternity isn't exactly an easy thing to grasp either. Even in the concept of a primordial and ever-changing now.

It still begs the question of how the 'now' came to be?

How could anything have ever come into being in the first place?

It ABSOLUTELY DEFIES LOGIC.

Yet, here we are!

Thus we have absolute proof that the universe is indeed ILLOGICAL.

Therefore to try to figure the universe out by using logic is a futile quest. Even though it appears that we've made some progress we really haven't. All we've succeeded in doing is describing what's unfolding at this current point in 'time' (and that may even included the lifespan of the entire universe). Compare the entire lifespan of the universe with 'eternity' and it's but a blink of an eye.

Even if we figured out this universe in every possible detail we would still know NOTHING. Now there a NOTHING that actually does exist!

Smiless...

I am glad to see your interest in philosophy...

Heidegger's On The Way To Language is very interesting, and has actually given my thoughts another facet of understanding on the 'nature' of language...

I don't think the universe is illogical in the slightest. I think it is very logical.

"Something" exists simply because NOTHING cannot EXIST. It has to be one or the other.

You define 'nothing' as a "condition" of "NO THING" existing. That itself is only a concept. It cannot even be a "condition." It cannot be experienced, imagined, or named because to even imagine it, there has to be the one who imagines (an observer) in the picture, hence there is always "something" - (The observer would be something.)

Therefore 'nothing' is the concept of a condition of nothingness that cannot exist, be experienced, known, or imagined without the introduction of an observer to do so. So the whole idea of 'nothing' is moot and non-existent point.



(We probably shouldn't even be talking about it. so shhhhhh......)

The only reason this makes logical sense to you is because you've already accepted the vantage point that the entire universe is a thought universe. So you're looking at all of existence entirely from the point of view of conciousness only.

I've always found this rather interesting. The universal consciousness that is this univerese ("God") is said to be so infinite in power and ability that there is NOTHING impossible for it.

Yet, in a very real sense what you are saying is that it's impossible for God to cease to exist. That would certainly be a limitation. The one thing God can't do is die, because in a universe that is pure thought a dead God could only mean that thought ceases.

But in a universe that is entirely made of thought, if thought ceases, that condition would mean that the the universal conciousness had become unconcious. No thought = no things = nothing.

So all you're saying really is that the nothing cannot exist because God cannot die.

Humans dream of being immortal. Perhaps God dreams of dying.

Beings always seem to want whatever it is they can't do.

In fact, if life is but a dream of God, then God sure is dreaming about dying almost constantly. Not a day goes by that someone doesn't die. The dream of life sure seems to be obsessed with death. Even the human lifespan is but a fleeting moment.

Maybe the dream of life is nothing more than God's desire to die and that's why it's such a dog-eat-dog world. God just keeps dreaming about dying.

That would explain a lot actaully.

Poor God needs a psychotherapist to get over this obscession with dreaming about death all the time.

Exactly right.

Imagine never ever dieing. Imagine if that was the only thing you could not do. You would invent a world that knows death and you would wipe the memory of immortality from all the manifestations in that world and instill the fear of death into them, then you would incarnate into that world and play the game of life and death.

Now, you have everything and now you can experience death.

Philosophy is fascinating. I don't think I will ever have a complete understanding of it, yet I do learn alot from you as of other posters who give their logic and understanding of it.

Thank you for contributing your time on it, as of the never-ending conversation of the term "language" in itself.

Fill - awful - see...

Yes, but it wouldn't be real death if you keep waking up from the dream.

All you'd be doing is infinitely dreaming about dying.

Like I say, God needs a shrink to get past this obsecession with death.

Or maybe this particular universe just happens to be a nightmare. After all, if God has infinitely many dreams maybe they aren't all this depressing.

Or, maybe as this dream progresses we will learn how to transfer our conscious awareness into indestructible bodies. This has already been the stuff of sci-fi dreams for many.

In fact, a String Theorist once suggested that it might be possible to escape the 'death' of this entire universe by being transported though the use of some sort of gravity waves to a neighboring universe that is much younger.

So who knows how this dream will end, or if it will ever end?.

Does "god" ever wake up? Or is god the eternal dreamer? Is the ability to dream the entire essence of God? Is that all God can do? Is that the totality of God's essence? God is but a dreamer?

What would it mean to be a dreamer when the totality of your existence is nothing other than the dream itself?

A dream having a dream? That's not illogical to you?

Yes, God does "wake up" or cease to dream. When he/she/IT does, all of the dream universes are drawn up and put into storage, and at least for us, it is all 'gone.' Then the dream begins all over the next time.

There are some universes where death does not exist and everything is calm and perfect. But the souls (individual incarnations of God) get bored there after a long while and they leave to seek out adventure and challenges.

There are also worse worlds than this one, that are 'nightmares.'



This is true. There is no 'real death' probably.

But the worlds are so fabulously constructed that things seem real.

Its a marvelous manifestation, a work of pure genius.

Where do you think Martin Heidegger was going with his logic? I am sure such a man who is known to be a philosopher and have studied many possibilities on many of the hard questions we have asked for thousands of years must have some depth behind his statements.

What do you believe he was saying?

Where do you think Martin Heidegger was going with his logic?

NOWHERE.

LOL just kidding.

According to Martin Heidegger, underlying everything is nothingness - nada, nil, nothing at all.

This is where he was going:

He traces his existence backward until it inevitably reaches the void. The void is a place or state of consciousness where the only thing that be can perceived is the perceiver itself and the darkness of "no-thing." This is the dark womb of this universe where everything begins and still begins. He has gone NO FURTHER than this place.

Is there anywhere else to go?

Yes.

But the void is where the soul becomes lost and panics because there is where it sees a sample of non-existence and solitude and where time is lost and there is no proof or acknowledgment of the existence of self or anything.

It looks like Solitary for infinity.

But it is just another layer of consciousness. Only the bold can get to the other side of that dark place, most go back to their former state.

Its really too bad everyone feels the need to have beautiful theories that explain nothing, and disregard the ugly demonstrable theories that explain most if not all phenomena.

Beautifully said.

That is very possible that he didn't see further then that void. The different possiblities that we can discover are for some impossible to envision. I guess Martin Heidegger couldn't get past that point in his lifetime.

Jeremy wrote...



Whatcha mean?

That play on words(Fill-awful-see) was in response to Smiless' compliment to me... it was in reference to my own metacognition...

Really? I thought this thread WAS ABOUT NOTHING! I thought smiles was asking what we thought about this subject.

Excuuuussse ME for discussing THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD!!

Now be a nice boy and go back to your world of phenomena and material things.

We are discussing nothing here.

Something you know nothing about.