Is nothing only perceived as blackness, or is it actually blackness?

[abaddon]

Yeah, the more I think about this the more I don't even know what to say about it.

That's nothingness for you. There, you have it at last!
EB

Because there’s no “it” to really be talking about. There’s just the half-ass concept.

I don’t think physics knows of any “nothing” in or "before" the universe. If I’m wrong, I hope someone will tell me. In all instances where I’ve heard physicists mention “nothing” they too really meant something else. Maybe there’s a quantum vacuum somewhere but it’s described as having properties so that’s not nothing and it's misleading to call it "nothing". Some physicists apparently try to describe a before the universe or before the Big Bang but it's always talk of events IN the universe.

Theists like to think that there’d be nothing rather than something if it weren’t for God. I’ve experienced surprise at existence too… and it’s just one of those occasional altered states of mind called “wonderment” which in itself is fine but from which no metaphysics can be extracted. But theists try. If existence seems "out of place" somehow :laughing-smiley-014 then we create a needless conundrum: Why not "nothing" instead? (See how language fucks people up? it makes them abstracted/dissociated enough to think that existing is weird). But theologian’s “nothingness”, like so many of their terms, requires a strained definition to be made to seem like it means anything. As with other of their terms, it isn’t really descriptive of anything either real or imaginary (and maybe not even possible). You just cannot talk about "nothing" without actually talking about something, and all assertions to the contrary are just that: mere assertions.

I’m thinking there’s just Something. Always. It’s the default. It’s not even the accidental or intentional Something that happened because the alternative of Absolute Nothing didn’t happen. Nothing’s not on the table as one of the options, neither when talking about the whole cosmos nor when talking about a small bit of empty space within the universe.

Language is such a very goofy, ancient thing, informed by ancient metaphors. We all ought to distrust it better. It shapes our worlds so we think it describes the world, which is a tad circular.

 

[untermensche]

Do you honestly think this complete nonsense can be explained in more detail?

It is one thing to muse about this concept of "nothingness".

It is childish madness to think you could make any concrete statements about it.

Maybe it's not that simple, surface appearances can be deceptive....perhaps the act of asking for an explanation shows that there is no explanation?

Saying that things can happen for no reason is a position that can be taken but not a position that can be defended, beyond saying "Because I say so".

 

[DBT]

Maybe it's not that simple, surface appearances can be deceptive....perhaps the act of asking for an explanation shows that there is no explanation?

Saying that things can happen for no reason is a position that can be taken but not a position that can be defended, beyond saying "Because I say so".

Sure, but I don't see much of a problem. Ryan offered an idea which, as it happens, didn't pan out. No big deal.

 

[untermensche]

Saying that things can happen for no reason is a position that can be taken but not a position that can be defended, beyond saying "Because I say so".

Sure, but I don't see much of a problem. Ryan offered an idea which, as it happens, didn't pan out. No big deal.

The problem I saw was an attempt to ascribe attributes to the concept of "nothingness".

It's a contradiction.

Nothingness can have no attributes.

 

[DBT]

Sure, but I don't see much of a problem. Ryan offered an idea which, as it happens, didn't pan out. No big deal.

The problem I saw was an attempt to ascribe attributes to the concept of "nothingness".

It's a contradiction.

Nothingness can have no attributes.

That's right. It didn't work, but nevertheless it was an attempt to explore an idea. Something that shouldn't be discouraged.

 

[untermensche]

The problem I saw was an attempt to ascribe attributes to the concept of "nothingness".

It's a contradiction.

Nothingness can have no attributes.

That's right. It didn't work, but nevertheless it was an attempt to explore an idea. Something that shouldn't be discouraged.

How is pointing out the error of an argument discouragement beyond discouragement to make that argument?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Blackness is a quality. Nothing has no qualities. So it is not black. If you argue that "not black" is also a quality, then that's just a matter of our language being highly constrained, and viewing nothingness as a "thing", because we can only make sense of things. We cannot make sense of nothing, our logic cannot deal with it.

 

[DBT]

That's right. It didn't work, but nevertheless it was an attempt to explore an idea. Something that shouldn't be discouraged.

How is pointing out the error of an argument discouragement beyond discouragement to make that argument?

Depends on how it's done. Sometimes it goes beyond merely pointing out the errors in an argument by including subtle (or not so subtle) innuendo relating to the intelligence of the poster. This might be done out of frustration because the poster cannot or does not see the errors being pointed out (if they are indeed errors), but the end result is that may discourage further interaction.

 

[another1]

You believe in elves, right? They're all over the place and people can't see them because they exist closer to a state of nothingness than humans. Heard of machine elves? If you're into elves, the machine elf theory drags the lake every few years and you can't ignore the evidence. The evidence is usually gathered using drugs that I don't practice using but it only takes one try to figure out what they're saying.

Before I talk more about elves, I have to explain for the sake of nothingness one embankment to look at nothing from. You know the stack of copies that gets dimmer as the cartridge starts to empty? That stack of papers is reality in this idea. The top page is blurry and the bottom is pristine. Above the top page is not where nothing is. Follow me for a few more sentences. There are mechanics maintaining the copy machine. This is said thousands of ways and misinterpreted in millions of ways, but this is my personal concoction of half truths and paranoid logic, which is what I believe reality is anyway.

I'm going to say five sheets of paper. That is the magic number because I like the number and in my own experiences I've seen five separate lines like film strips and that is all I can say in our monkey language. There are no words, just experience in this case. I'm still going to try because it amuses me. I've learned about drugs from watching other people use them and asking them questions while they were intoxicated. The process is pretty scientific at this point and I trust what I think I know. Every single person ever to use N,N-Dimethyltryptamine in my presence saw a similar image in the first few minutes of the experience. Even people who had no exposure to mechanical elf knowledge in any way. I could only control things so far but after seeing it a few dozen times, I stamped the folder and moved on.

Now, you've got a few sheets of paper of which we are sitting atop. Below those sheets is the mechanical department, seen as fractal, mercurial, kaleidoscopic and any other drug vision word you can apply. My seldom encounters with the hallucinations were strange and hard to explain, but there are robotic insects crawling on a satellite somewhere outside what we call time. Some transform to tools and some become part of this satellite structure. The last time I will ever use that substance I stared really hard and screamed at them. They stopped what they were doing, tilted their heads and gave me a goofy look. I assumed the goofy look was to throw me off, and it did. My laughter made them melt back into the geometric shapes. This isn't about drugs so I'll move on.

Nothingness in the sense of what I'm getting at is next to the place where the mechanics get their orders. The mechanics work all day and maintain a signal for our brains to receive. The signal gets bounced upward to less genuine versions of time until we get what we think we are experiencing. This is impossible to explain because there are too many roads to skip down and it would take all of remaining history to find the right combination of ideas to bring a proper theory. That is in the mechanics of the situation and I personally believe confusion is manufactured on a metaphysical level for one purpose, which is keeping us alive in what is ultimately nothingness boxing in the mirror.

So anyway, The orders are passed down or up by the boss heads (the Christian God of course) and below that, things eventually become nothing. As for what color, shade or lack of color, I think nothingness is whatever something wants you to think it looks like. The absence of light can't be detected by a totally blind person in the same way nothingness can't be fathomed by something as stupid as a human. I don't mean stupid in a bad way. I just mean it in an "incapable of grasping the concept due to lack of perception, which is caused intentionally by mercurial insects working on a hologram transmitting satellite" way. As for elves, they are interesting and you should check out the many varieties of elves we have in cultures.

 

[untermensche]

How is pointing out the error of an argument discouragement beyond discouragement to make that argument?

Depends on how it's done. Sometimes it goes beyond merely pointing out the errors in an argument by including subtle (or not so subtle) innuendo relating to the intelligence of the poster. This might be done out of frustration because the poster cannot or does not see the errors being pointed out (if they are indeed errors), but the end result is that may discourage further interaction.

People should be free to say whatever they want.

And people should leave their feelings at the door.

 

[DBT]

Depends on how it's done. Sometimes it goes beyond merely pointing out the errors in an argument by including subtle (or not so subtle) innuendo relating to the intelligence of the poster. This might be done out of frustration because the poster cannot or does not see the errors being pointed out (if they are indeed errors), but the end result is that may discourage further interaction.

People should be free to say whatever they want.

And people should leave their feelings at the door.

The distinction being between attacking the argument rather than the person, his or her intelligence, ability or aptitude.

The former is fair game while the latter is inconsiderate and rude....except if the other party starts hurling abuse....but responding in the same manner becomes just another pissing contest. A waste of time, unless you happen to enjoy that kind of thing.

 

[another1]

Things with "reality" and "unknowable" in the title end up making people defend their reality model, and as it slips away they defend it like a Faberge ego Easter egg. That is something I've noticed in deep and more importantly anonymous conversations. Not so much here, but I've observed and participated in that cycle and still do because it is addictive.

 

[untermensche]

People should be free to say whatever they want.

And people should leave their feelings at the door.

The distinction being between attacking the argument rather than the person, his or her intelligence, ability or aptitude.

The former is fair game while the latter is inconsiderate and rude....except if the other party starts hurling abuse....but responding in the same manner becomes just another pissing contest. A waste of time, unless you happen to enjoy that kind of thing.

If somebody wants to talk about me and not the ideas I put forth they should be free to do so.

I'm only interested in the ideas but I understand that apes will be apes. In captivity they throw their feces. It's crazy to expect anything else from them.

 

[Jobar]

"Nothingness" is a concept- which is itself something. So true nothingness cannot be conceptualized.

 

[abaddon]

If it cannot be conceptualized, then is that because the concept itself is 1) more like a possibly existent thing in an alternate universe so weird that we just don’t have the language to conceptualize it better? or 2) more like 2=2=5?

 

[Jobar]

Most everyone knows the classic Zen koan, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

That's meant to show the limits of conceptualization, and perception. In the same way, trying to think about nothingness shorts out our normal thought processes. It leads us into an ever-shrinking circle that must eventually silence our minds.

If all of reality is polar, and we can only perceive figures against some background, then "nothingness" can only be perceived against the background of "somethingness".

And if all reality is non-dual, unitary, then in some way "nothingness" and "somethingness" are the same.

And if that doesn't blow your thought processes out of the water, nothing (heh) will!

 

[ryan]

"Nothingness" is a concept- which is itself something. So true nothingness cannot be conceptualized.

I meant no physical thing.

 

[untermensche]

"Nothingness" is a concept- which is itself something. So true nothingness cannot be conceptualized.

It is conceptualized by saying it is the absence of all.

It is easy to conceptualize.

And in terms of numbers it is a concept that has use.

But it is absurd to talk about having a little piece of it to examine in the real world.

In the real world there is no way to create the absence of all.

 

[4321lynx]

OK guys. Very interesting thread. Anyone want more mental exercise?

Compare and contrast nothingness with the mathematical idea of zero.

I can't do it so am asking for help/informed argument.

 

[bilby]

Zero, like empty space, is not nothing. Zero is a datum; if you know that the temperature is zero degrees, then that's real knowledge. It is a very different thing from not knowing what the temperature is.

If your database contains a zero, that's a fact. If it contains 'null', then that's the absence of a fact - but there has to be a database field to contain 'null' - so a 'null' is itself informational, as it is metadata. It seems that you can't have nothing without having at least metadata to give the nothing context; in the absence of context, there would be nothing, but then there couldn't be anything.

So if anything exists, 'nothing' cannot.