"non-existence cannot be"

The mistakes & paradoxes only come from treating "nothing" as "something".

..how about Nothing meaning 'no thing'..i.e. no definable separation or objects..this is not the same as complete absence of existence..
"form is emptiness.." etc

..or Nothing meaning an infinitely small (sizeless) point, as in the vedic/hindu Bindu dot (origin of our symbol for zero "0" )..

..is 'potential' "something"?
i await a physicist to shoot me down, but isn't a major concept that 'nothing'/the void is inherently unstable, hence, through possibility or probability, given an infinite amount of time, something will happen..? the so-called 'vacuum energy' or quantum fluctuation.. (i think 'dark energy' is a dumb name)

..and finally, could there not be 'nothing' over 'here', and 'something' over 'there', for instance?

i believe Aristotle was extremely anti-Nothing, and didn't like that the ancient Greek Atomists postulated a void of nothing in which atoms floated..this anti-zero philosophy permeated Christianity, and the incredibly late adoption of zero & base ten in European mathematics..

i highly recommend The Book Of Nothing (2002) by John D. Barrow (maths professor and one of the developers of the Anthropic Principle)

...

Well said right there Gibran , also I like the comparrison of the concept of nothing to infinity. I think that creates a balanced contrast.



K2 I like this explanation, I have taken recent interest in eastern philosphy, after I started looking into Taoism about 2 years ago.



Could you elaborate or share more thoughts about this, it sounds interesting but I don't quite get it.



I was just wondering if there was any literature that touched on this more indepth, thanks for sharing, I'll look into it.

I almost forgot this one, how mind boggling

The infinite expression of being is only fathomed each being unto itself but when surrendered to the calm of what is, but does not choose to exhibit form, the paradox between being and existing permits itself the place to react to that void in order to fill it. By her inherent laws of existence, all that is will continually remind us of existences motion. To abstract or be apart from what is will cause a separation apart from where from which one can begin to approach the question of what the sum totality of all that is comes from, ever came from, and ever was to the point of relinquishing our minds feeble attempt to acknowledge or know it in mind. A difference approach is to listen to the essence of you that is left in that place where you are weightless in a sensory deprivation chamber. From that one can establish a calmness from within ones self through which one can create a portal before their sensed presence of existing upon entering this cardinal plane. Like a perfect precipice beyond the scope of what you forgot (upon being born) in for you to come down here (for growth) that sense of totality of being running before you came down here (when you were born) helps you to trace your steps in the progression of your soul memory, and by that you have a glimpse into your souls inception into all that it has been in order it establishes the root base by which you can see the constituent parts that make the sum totality of you in reference to the parts of the universe constantly giving over to flow into a portion of itself in order that it might experience growth through experiencing itself in separate self with free will individuated consciousness. By that the sum serving the whole, and the parts extending expressing, and relinquishing experience into the totality of what has been, will be again, and all that is and eternally is irrespective of time as we understand it from this place.

Is nothing nothing if you define it as nothing? That in itself gives nothing a concept of its own, a definition, so it's no longer just nothing. Nothing would be the thing we humans have never even dreamed of, completely outside our scope, because its so... NOTHING.

But even then I have just given it definition. How very obscure indeed.....

physics uses a nothing concept all the time, but calls it vacuum, but it is not actually discernible from nothing

that nothing and something are linked is not a contradiction

that is like saying a vacuum state cannot exist

but what is a vacuum in the ultimate sense?
literally nothing

everything from nothing, and nothing as a vacuum in an ultimate sense?
that is a key part of theory about the formation of the universe, isn't that part of this topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/...nflation_%28cosmology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy


nothing is a big part of physics theory, it plays a role in field theory where T=0, that is when there is zero matter and zero energy, zero time/space etc, but this is a very important state, despite being a state of nothing

there are some very philosophical notions of nothing in this thread, but those are semantic games and little else, nothing is very real in the sense of physics

Even in physics, the term “nothing” must be defined. So any discussion of nothing is a discussion involving semantics.

The nothing of physics is either a state that can’t actually exist in reality in the same way that mass is not actually concentrated at a point in Newtonian physics, or the nothing of physics is actually something. The absence of matter and energy may be called “nothing” by physicists, but it is not the same as “nothing” as I define it and as it is commonly defined.

As I’ve said in previous posts, some physicists claim that quantum fluctuations in “nothingness” led to the Big Bang – they claim the universe was “created out of nothing”. This is true only if you define “nothing” in a very specific way. The physicists’ definition of nothing includes probabilities or tendencies of “nothing” to burst forth into something. True “nothing” has no probabilities or tendencies, and so it isn’t possible for something to pop into existence out of nothing. If something (matter, energy, etc.) can pop into existence out of nothing, then “nothing” has a capacity to cause something to pop into existence. This definition may suit physicists just fine, but their “nothing” is indeed something.

The funny thing is that even your nothing is something.

Yes – as soon as we speak of nothing, it becomes something. But I maintain the view that “nothing” is an abstraction. It doesn’t exist.

Not only do I agree, but that is the same as the void or the vacuum in the sense of physics and mysticism.
It has the property of being without property, it is not in existence by definition, ergo it is void or vacuum.

This is why in Kabbalah there is the abyss separating ain soph from the manifest. Nothing in the ultimate sense is incomprehensible and cannot be referred to, but it is viewed as the starting point from a linear view.

In the non linear view it is a concurrent phenomena with everything in a manner of polarity. That the universe and existence exists in a state of nothing, that beyond existence there is nothing. Existence itself cannot be without a counter state, even if it is a non state.

I like Erik Eriksons take on Cicero's late haiku: 'we see Issa the old man - hundreds of years, thousands of years old, the Old Man of Edward Lear. That is our fate too. We have to die, to become nothing, in order to know the meaning of something'.

We shall only know nothing when we are no longer something; nothing only reveals itself beyond the scope of things, after we leave the set of ALL.

IOW.

Mr. AKL - the vacuum described in physics has the property of "potential": the "potential" for matter to spontaneously "pop" into existence. Thus a vacuum is not nothing, both semantically AND in terms of physics.

A void however, in the mystical sense, is a word interchangeable with NOTHING. That being said, well...

JBArk

, ? ' , !

That seems logical to me. I've started to feel that the 'ALL' as you call it is actually created by this 'nothing' which in itself is a very weird and paradoxical thing to say... But maybe it won't seem so weird and paradoxical when we cease being 'something'. Not to derail but i'm being reminded of this territory right now...

First steps on the 'road to recovery', you can memorize these handy slogans:

* It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God made everything out of nothing.

* It is rational and scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.
* It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is eternal.

* It is rational and scientific to believe that matter is eternal.

Perhaps its all in the language we use and the thought forms we imagine. and we created all this. and the things we created rule our lives.

I don’t think it’s possible to cease being something.

Although I don’t believe that God made something out of nothing, I do believe that what we call “something” is not made out of nothing.

It is neither rational nor scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing. In fact, I think such a statement is also a logical contradiction. For nothing to make something means nothing has the potential to make something. If nothing has potential, whether that potential is exercised or not, means that what you are calling nothing is in fact something: a potential for creation.

I don’t think it’s rational or scientific to think that matter is eternal – all matter eventually decays. Even stable elements are subject to spontaneous nuclear decay.

Nothing can also be called "clear light" (sunyata). Whiter than white, blacker than black, so to speak. Infinite potential bursting into reality by shadows/reflections of the clear light, where it reflects/blocks itself. The nature of why/how/where it reflects/shadows itself is the ungraspable Tao, the eternal mystery.

Creation ex nihilo is silly in my opinion but that's in terms of creating "all things that are" from literally "non-existence". There has always been "something", the clear light. Which of course, is "nothing". "All things that are" is not the same as "all there is" either! "All there is" has always been and always will. "All things that are" have a beginning and end or they would not be things.

I mean it's something we can't comprehend anyway. Anything you could concieve of to be "non-existence" is all in existence. Even the dark eternity before death is still in your mind! Can there be "you" without "you"? That's what the idea of "non-existence" as an impossibility/paradox represents. On the other hand the clear light concept of nothing is not an impossibility or a paradox but rather the only possibility/happening, and the only logical truth, if you can understand what I mean.

The clear light is the same damn thing as the "vacuum" in physics, so to speak. Particles arise from the vacuum in pairs. Remember that empty space is actually filled with light "travelling" in every single direction simultaneously in every single angle, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see anything. Photons only exist at their beginning (transmission) and endpoints (absorption), the "travelling in between" IS space, the clear light.

You can look at the clear light in terms of pairs cancelling each other out, all things arise in pairs. All dimensions have 2 endpoints, all photons have 2 definite locations, etc. The clear light is not a "thing", it is "no-thing", what forms become when they cease to exist and so turn formless is clear light.

If you grasp the phrase "emptiness is form, form is emptiness", there is no need to question "nothing". It is all one, even non-existence and existence.

Here’s a very nice article loosely related to this discussion:

Vincent Bugliosi: Why Do I Doubt Both the Atheists and the Theists?

This quote nicely sums up the article:

beautifully put, embracethevoid..

AlbertKLloyd, when you say some concepts of nothing are merely semantics,
Nothing is also a firm and established mathematical principle..it works in all the sums that describe the universe..
the late adoption of zero in European mathematics (thousands of years after Asia, and hundreds after the Arab world) hindered advancement..
(see The Book Of Nothing by J.D.Barrow)..the infinitely small point (Bindu) is the maths concept of a 'point'..something, yet also nothing..

gibran2 wrote this is, to me, an 'absolutist' perspective..in the model of our universe bubble expanding to create time and space, the expansion is into Nothing
..in other words, there could be something over here, and nothing there..

also, how about something that 'doesn't exist'? never been thought of and never will be..is that 'something'..?

keep up the great brain work all of ya..


[embracethevoid, above] ..great stuff!

Joey Joe Joe Jr Shabadoo right on!
...

the handy slogans bit of my spiel was taken from an ironic joke aimed at people who subscribe to hardcore scientism, but i kinda ruined it by putting it there out of context... However yes its a logical contradiction depending on how you define 'nothing'. I define it as potential for something, probably something similar to what alan watts said: 'nothing is more fertile than nothing'. In fact maybe we should be talking about 'potential' rather than 'nothing' i.e everything exists because it is in equilibrium with potential...

Thanks for the article also. I recommend this thread http://forums.philosophy...threads/magic-48345.html that was (i would imagine) born out of the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti, among others. See if you notice anything.