FrostCloud Forums

FrostCloud Forums (
-   General Philosophy (
-   -   Does Nothingness exist? (

raulduke 07-22-2010 06:46 PM

Isn't it possible that love, like faith and humor is a construct that our species has evolved to help deal with the infinite and frightening unknown which is this life? I am not against love but all too many times it really does seem like an unnatural creation that only our species would be forced to create to help us go on with life and not commit mass suicide. I'll refer to Hemingway's quote that "Only a species so sad and tortured as man would have to come up with humor to help cope." Couldn't humor be replaced in this quote quite easily?

Antone 07-25-2010 03:34 PM


Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 447741)
Does Nothingness exist?
If it does, then it is not nothingness, for it then exists.
The concept of 'zero' exists. We use nothingness as a 'thing'... But it is 'nothing', so how can [nothing] be also [something]? How can it [exist,] if it [does not exist]?

[Nothingness] exists as a concept. Conceptually then, it is as real as any other concept.

Is the [concept of an apple] real?
In the physical sense, NO! You can't touch or eat the [concept of an apple].
In the physical sense, It is quite literally [nothing].

Conceptually, the [concept of nothing] is as real as the [concept of the apple].
The difference is that [nothing] does not have a physical object as a counterpart--instead, it has the absence of all physical objects as a counter part.

This leads to a distinction between [concept of nothing] and the [concept of zero].
[Nothing] is the absence of everything.
[Zero] is the absence of something.


Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 447741)
... demonstrate a perfect paradox.
Which shows that REALITY does not always abide by logic.

There is no paradox if you allow for the reciprocal nature of reality... which requires both the [conceptual aspect] and the [physical aspect] in order to talk intelligently about things in the world.


Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 447741)
if it was not possible for something to come out of nothing...

Theories about the foundations of mathematics demonstrate how it is possible to think of something coming from nothing. They 'construct' the ordinal number sequence by progressively embedding the empty set inside itself. My personal version of this process goes as follows:
1 = {x:x is nothing}
2 = {x:x is {x’:x’ is nothing}}
3 = {x:x is {x’:x’ is {x”:x” is nothing}}}
4 = {x:x is {x’:x’ is {x”:x” is {x’”:x’” is nothing}}}}
and so on…
In other words,
[1] is the {idea of nothing}.
[2] is the {idea of the {idea of nothing}}.
[3] is the {idea of the {idea of the {idea of nothing}}}.
and so on...
This ordinal sequence gives us the concept of [order]. To transform it into the cardinal sequence, all we have to do is match each ordinal number with a physical object that is conceptually identical.

This is why the necessary existence of concepts is so important. Without the [apple concept] each physical apple would have to be considered as a unique and different object--which in the physical sense they clearly are. If I eat the [apple in my hand] I have not eaten the [apple in your hand]. But the [apple concept] provides us with a way to logically treat all [physical apples] as if they were the same. And this allows us to count them, by creating a one-to-one-correspondence between each [physical apple] and the [ordinal number sequence]... which we have literally constructed out of nothingness.


Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 447741)
Somewhere along the line something has to come from nothing (more from less) or else all would be static.

In a similar way to the mathematical construction process that I outlined above... I think we can understand physical reality to (in a sense) be generated out of nothingness.

Think about it like this. There are subatomic particles that are literally [nothing] with respect to one physical characteristic or another. They may have [0 mass] for example. As such, they are arising out of nothing, and creating something by joining with other subatomic particles that may be nothing with respect to some other physical characteristic.

This is not unlike the way we see the apple arising out of two reciprocal aspects that are nothing in terms of the opposite aspect.
In the physical sense, the conceptual apple has no mass, but
In the conceptual sense, the physical apple has no conceptual identity. Each apple is a unique and totally different object.

In both cases, we have something arising (in a sense) from two reciprocal aspects of nothing.


Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 447741)
In order for change to be possible, something must change from one thing to another ~ thus more must come from less, which is to say something from nothing.

Not necessarily.
For it is also true that [something] changes into [nothing] from time to time.
An apple rots and turns to dirt.
A subatomic particle winks out of physical existence.

The structure of the reciprocal aspects allows for there to be constant change without forcing ourselves into a paradox.

TruthInArt 07-26-2010 06:29 AM

1/0x0/1=1 or 0

For this case to be true it need be inferred from A/BXB/A=1.
In other words is 0 an exception to reciprocities cardinal rule?

1/2x2/1=1 since 1x2=2 and 2x1=2 therefore 2/2=1
n/?x?/n=1 in other words for every real number is its reciprocal.
1/0x0/1=0 since 1x0=0 and 0x1=0 therefore 0/0=1 or 0?????
IF I am allowed to say n/n=1 does n include 0 or not?

Mike Dubbeld 07-26-2010 11:40 AM

Thankyou Antone! Your post demonstrates at least there are a few people out there not on drugs. The distinction you are making between the notion of an abstract idea of "nothingness" and physical reality basically cannot be comprehended by someone not familar with mathematical concepts. Inability to distinguish "mathematical truth" or concepts or what I call abstract ideas from physical things perceived by the senses - what the world calls "scientific truth" is a major hurtle for beginners in attempting to distinguish what is real and not and in what sense of the word 'real' is. TIA recently came to realize if only vaguely this distinction also. Historically it has been the bain of mathematicians in the west fearing their abstract reality might soon fall to the fate of things like 'metaphysics' and 'philosopy' and until recently psychology. But none of these diciplines ever had anything to fear to begin with as each can today effortlessly thwart reductionist viewpoints.

What amazes me most about FC is the same old drivel cast a thousand different ways - few seem to grasp the answer as a matter of categorical distinction. I used to think I was not particularly bright until I saw an endless set of responses indicating they simply did not get it. I used to figure if I could figure something out I should ass ume other people did as well and I proceeded to do with its implications only to realize the implcations were not in general understood. Although we each have our own agenda and color our perceptions of input, the discrimination between mathematical 'realness' and physical 'realness' is from my perspective a VERY basic concept. LOL :)

TruthInArt 07-27-2010 07:28 AM


Originally Posted by jdp (Post 447753)
Zero is a number, however, and an integer, so it is something. It simply doesn't enumerate anything.

A friend of mine who was a maths teacher claims 0 is not a number but a place marker. Is he right or wrong?

We say 10 to the power of n or do we say 1 to the power of n-1?

What if we said 1 to the power of -n what occurs then?

Still further what if we predict the square root of such a number?

To the end that for an imaginary plane to exist is that not nothing?

Or are these question mere idle foolishness of one who has too much time to think?

Therefore I am nothing since the questions asked mean nothing to anyone but me.

At least I am something to myself!


PoseidonsNet 07-28-2010 08:33 PM


There is no paradox if you allow for the reciprocal nature of reality... which requires both the [conceptual aspect] and the [physical aspect] in order to talk intelligently about things in the world.



A friend of mine who was a maths teacher claims 0 is not a number but a place marker. Is he right or wrong?
At the same time that we realise that the physical is distinct from the conceptual ~ classical dualism ~ we also have to realise that the qualitative is distinct from the quantitative.

You ask a great question Peat, in order to answer it, we have to realise that numbers themselves are meaningless unless they measure some quality.

In computer programming terms, we have to consider zero in the same category as numbers, it seems, but not always...

... the concepts of zero, nil, nul, and 'a space' all seem very similar,
but are qualitatively different - and we often use the term 'nothing' in a variety of contexts.

In its extremity - having no math capacity is less than having no programming capacity, and less than both would be to not exist as a subject to even be wrong in any respect.


Object permanance is a psychological concept acquired in infancy where one learns the princiciple that just because something seems to not exist (you cannot see it), does not mean it stops existing.

Its most probable that subatomic particles are passing through this 3-d universe and existed before we saw them appear, and after they have gone ~ in space that is many more dimensions greater than 3.

TruthInArt 07-29-2010 01:03 AM


Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet (Post 453567)
we also have to realise that the qualitative is distinct from the quantitative.
Its most probable that subatomic particles are passing through this 3-d universe and existed before we saw them appear, and after they have gone ~ in space that is many more dimensions greater than 3.

The problem is only qualitative since Mike Dubbeld makes a claim that number is purely conceptual. We have no idea what one is which is why I use a/bxb/a=1 to prove all numbers hold to the principle of reciprocity.

There exists a reciprocal for every number.
The negative numbers also hold to this law.
Square roots of them require a z axis so raw.
Electricity seems to require that kind of number.

Funny it is that one orange looks like a zero.

Jean-Robert Argand was born in Geneva, Switzerland to Jacques Argand, his father, and Eve Carnac, his mother. His background and education are mostly unknown. Since his knowledge of mathematics was self-taught and he did not belong to any mathematical organizations, he likely pursued mathematics as a hobby rather than a profession.
Argand moved to Paris in 1806 with his family and, when managing a bookshop there, privately published his Essai sur une manière de représenter les quantités imaginaires dans les constructions géométriques (Essay on a method of representing imaginary quantities). In 1813, it was republished in the French journal Annales de Mathématiques. The Essay discussed a method of graphing complex numbers via analytical geometry. It proposed the interpretation of the value i as a rotation of 90 degrees in the Argand plane. In this essay he was also the first to propose the idea of modulus to indicate the magnitude of vectors and complex numbers, as well as the notation for vectors The topic of complex numbers was also being studied by other mathematicians, notably Carl Friedrich Gauss and Caspar Wessel. Wessel's 1799 paper on a similar graphing technique did not attract attention.
Argand is also renowned for delivering a proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in his 1814 work Réflexions sur la nouvelle théorie d'analyse (Reflections on the new theory of analysis). It was the first complete and rigorous proof of the theorem, and was also the first proof to generalize the fundamental theorem of algebra to include polynomials with complex coefficients. In 1978 it was called by The Mathematical Intelligencer “both ingenious and profound,” and was later referenced in Cauchy's Cours d’Analyse and Chrystal's influential textbook Algebra.
Jean-Robert Argand died of an unknown cause on August 13, 1822 in Paris.


Seff 10-24-2020 11:06 PM


Originally Posted by Symptom777 (Post 447745)
look between your ears

Harsh. Funny, but still harsh!

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network