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

[J842P]

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

This seems like a category error to me. You are confusing the reference with the referent.

 

[untermensche]

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.

?

The temperature scale is entirely arbitrary. It not only contains zero it contains the idea of negative temperature, whatever that could possibly mean.

The way zero is used arbitrarily and the concept of zero are two different things.

And conceptually the notion of zero is exactly the same thing as the concept of "nothingness", the complete absence of value.

 

[Juma]

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.

?

The temperature scale is entirely arbitrary. It not only contains zero it contains the idea of negative temperature, whatever that could possibly mean.

The way zero is used arbitrarily and the concept of zero are two different things.

And conceptually the notion of zero is exactly the same thing as the concept of "nothingness", the complete absence of value.

So the 0 on a scale doesnt have a position?

 

[untermensche]

?

The temperature scale is entirely arbitrary. It not only contains zero it contains the idea of negative temperature, whatever that could possibly mean.

The way zero is used arbitrarily and the concept of zero are two different things.

And conceptually the notion of zero is exactly the same thing as the concept of "nothingness", the complete absence of value.

So the 0 on a scale doesnt have a position?

If it represents absolute zero, the absence of temperature, then it is used analogously to "nothingness".

But if it appears in the middle of a temperature scale it is just an arbitrary placement that doesn't represent the absence of temperature and is not analogous.

 

[Juma]

So the 0 on a scale doesnt have a position?

If it represents absolute zero, the absence of temperature, then it is used analogously to "nothingness"..

0 Kelvin is not "no temperature". There is a temperature and in Kelvin units that temperature has value 0.

 

[untermensche]

If it represents absolute zero, the absence of temperature, then it is used analogously to "nothingness"..

0 Kelvin is not "no temperature". There is a temperature and in Kelvin units that temperature has value 0.

I said "IF" zero is used to represent the absence of temperature then it is analogous to "nothingness".

If it arbitrarily represents some temperature then it is not.

So the overall point is that sometimes zero can be used to represent a something and sometimes it can be used to represent "nothingness".

Like adding "nothingness" to six.

6 + 0 = 6

 

[Juma]

0 Kelvin is not "no temperature". There is a temperature and in Kelvin units that temperature has value 0.

I said "IF" zero is used to represent the absence of temperature then it is analogous to "nothingness".

If it arbitrarily represents some temperature then it is not.

So the overall point is that sometimes zero can be used to represent a something and sometimes it can be used to represent "nothingness".

Like adding "nothingness" to six.

6 + 0 = 6

Sigh... 0 never represents absence of temperature. Temperature is a system dimension.

 

[untermensche]

I said "IF" zero is used to represent the absence of temperature then it is analogous to "nothingness".

If it arbitrarily represents some temperature then it is not.

So the overall point is that sometimes zero can be used to represent a something and sometimes it can be used to represent "nothingness".

Like adding "nothingness" to six.

6 + 0 = 6

Sigh... 0 never represents absence of temperature. Temperature is a system dimension.

If there is an absence of a system is there an absence of temperature?

It does not matter one bit if it takes the conceptual removal of all things to achieve the absence of temperature.

It can still be conceived, and in that case zero would be analogous to "nothingness".

Just like adding zero to six is analogous to adding "nothingness".

Yet when we multiply by zero it reduces all to "nothingness".

So again, zero can be a something under some circumstances and nothing under others.

 

[Juma]

Sigh... 0 never represents absence of temperature. Temperature is a system dimension.

If there is an absence of a system is there an absence of temperature?

It does not matter one bit if it takes the conceptual removal of all things to achieve the absence of temperature.

It can still be conceived, and in that case zero would be analogous to "nothingness".

Just like adding zero to six is analogous to adding "nothingness".

Yet when we multiply by zero it reduces all to "nothingness".

So again, zero can be a something under some circumstances and nothing under others.

Are you drunk? Then congrats...

 

[untermensche]

If there is an absence of a system is there an absence of temperature?

It does not matter one bit if it takes the conceptual removal of all things to achieve the absence of temperature.

It can still be conceived, and in that case zero would be analogous to "nothingness".

Just like adding zero to six is analogous to adding "nothingness".

Yet when we multiply by zero it reduces all to "nothingness".

So again, zero can be a something under some circumstances and nothing under others.

Are you drunk? Then congrats...

Is it beyond you?

It's as simple as it can be put.

You understand that adding zero to six is equivalent to adding "nothingness" to six?

 

[Juma]

Are you drunk? Then congrats...

Is it beyond you?

It's as simple as it can be put.

You understand that adding zero to six is equivalent to adding "nothingness" to six?

It is not only simple, it is so obvious.

Its also obvious that you didnt get why 0 temperature isnot an example of nothingness.

 

[untermensche]

Is it beyond you?

It's as simple as it can be put.

You understand that adding zero to six is equivalent to adding "nothingness" to six?

It is not only simple, it is so obvious.

Its also obvious that you didnt get why 0 temperature isnot an example of nothingness.

Are you drunk?

If I say that in my conceptualized temperature scale zero represents the absence of temperature then that is what it is.

Who are you to say it doesn't?

 

[Juma]

It is not only simple, it is so obvious.

Its also obvious that you didnt get why 0 temperature isnot an example of nothingness.

Are you drunk?

If I say that in my conceptualized temperature scale zero represents the absence of temperature then that is what it is.

Who are you to say it doesn't?

Temperature is never absent. A value of 0 simply indicates that it equals some temperature reference. You can raise or lower the temperature, not add or remove.

 

[untermensche]

Are you drunk?

If I say that in my conceptualized temperature scale zero represents the absence of temperature then that is what it is.

Who are you to say it doesn't?

Temperature is never absent. A value of 0 simply indicates that it equals some temperature reference. You can raise or lower the temperature, not add or remove.

Again, if all is absent then temperature is absent.

And in that case zero most definitely corresponds to "nothingness".

But this is besides any point I was trying to make about the duel nature of the concept of zero.

It is already clear zero can be used to represent a temperature in the case of our common temperature scales.

 

[bilby]

The Australian National Security Hotline number for reporting suspected terrorist activity is 1800 123 400.

If zero and nothing are the same thing, then you could ring the hotline on 18 123 4. But you can't. because zero and nothing are different.

 

[untermensche]

The Australian National Security Hotline number for reporting suspected terrorist activity is 1800 123 400.

If zero and nothing are the same thing, then you could ring the hotline on 18 123 4. But you can't. because zero and nothing are different.

As I said. In some cases zero is a something.

But there are cases where it is nothing.

Like the case of 6 + 0 = 6

 

[abaddon]

Numbers seems like a different discussion. Might as well be talking about the stains on my wall that represent nothing, as opposed to the paintings on my wall that represent something. They’re still all somethings. Zero does not represent an nonexistent emtpy void. It’s just a quantity of no value, just as the stains are images of no particular thing (there’s no value to attribute to them).

 

[bilby]

Numbers seems like a different discussion. Might as well be talking about the stains on my wall that represent nothing, as opposed to the paintings on my wall that represent something. They’re still all somethings. Zero does not represent an nonexistent emtpy void. It’s just a quantity of no value, just as the stains are images of no particular thing (there’s no value to attribute to them).

Sure, but that's true for ALL instances of 'nothing'. Either you are talking about 'nothing' in the context of a wider 'something' - zero in the context of numbers, meaningless stains in the context of paintings, blackness in the context of light - or you are discussing 'nothing' in the absence of context, which is simply an absurdity; there cannot be both nothing and something in the same universe, because as soon as there is anything, the nothing is given context, rendering it something.

It's like the old 'irresistible force' vs 'immovable object' discussion - you can talk about it, but it's all absurd. Physics tells us that there are no immovable objects; and that all forces are irresistible - the discussion of forces that can be resisted, or of objects that can't be moved, is a reasonable as discussing married bachelors, or how one might perceive nothing. It's possible, in English, to express absurd propositions; but it's not meaningful to do so.

 

[fromderinside]

I'd rather talk in terms of closed and open systems when discussing the existence of nothing among something systems. Each has to be treated on its own. That is different from nothing can't exist when something is present outside of where nothing occurs.

 

[ryan]

Numbers seems like a different discussion. Might as well be talking about the stains on my wall that represent nothing, as opposed to the paintings on my wall that represent something. They’re still all somethings. Zero does not represent an nonexistent emtpy void. It’s just a quantity of no value, just as the stains are images of no particular thing (there’s no value to attribute to them).

Sure, but that's true for ALL instances of 'nothing'. Either you are talking about 'nothing' in the context of a wider 'something' - zero in the context of numbers, meaningless stains in the context of paintings, blackness in the context of light - or you are discussing 'nothing' in the absence of context, which is simply an absurdity; there cannot be both nothing and something in the same universe, because as soon as there is anything, the nothing is given context, rendering it something.

The only properties I see worth discussing about what something is is its intrinsic properties. Context is not an intrinsic property of nothing.

It's like the old 'irresistible force' vs 'immovable object' discussion - you can talk about it, but it's all absurd. Physics tells us that there are no immovable objects; and that all forces are irresistible - the discussion of forces that can be resisted, or of objects that can't be moved, is a reasonable as discussing married bachelors, or how one might perceive nothing. It's possible, in English, to express absurd propositions; but it's not meaningful to do so.

But we have to end this with the best logic. Isn't the best logic the logic of deduction? So if we define nothing as something that does not exist in any conceivable way, then it does not exist in any conceivable way.