Is nothing something?

[wotgoplunk]

Is the "absence of something" in itself, something?

I haven't made up my mind yet, but definitely leaning towards nothing literally being the absence of something...therefore nothing is not something.

But first, we should define them. I take the definitions to be as follows:

"nothing": The absence of something.
"something": Matter, that consists of atoms, or antimatter that consists of antiparticles.

And we are talking about a philosophical "nothing", not a colloquial "nothing".

So onto my points:

1. Saying "the absence of something is something itself" seems like a logical flaw. An invisible pink unicorn is something. Therefore, the absence of invisible pink unicorns, implies that invisible pink unicorns actually exist, obviously quite the contradiction.

2. I firmly believe that "nothing" cannot exist. Everything in the entire universe is made up of particles, or antiparticles, and therefore deemed "something". You could argue a vacuum is an example, but a true vacuum is only reached at absolute zero, an impossibility due to the third (?) law of thermodynamics.

3. One could argue that because the concept of nothing exists, nothing must exist. I've heard this used in many arguments, but again, replace it with the unicorns, and anti-unicorns.


I'm open to anyone who has proof, or strong evidence either way.

Just please try to keep it as non-technical as possible, my young mind struggles to keep up. =P

[prometheus]

Nothing is not 'the absence of something', it's the absence of everything.

Since 'something' is part of 'everything' then 'nothing' is not 'something'.

Actually, even 'nothing' is part of 'everything'. Therefore, 'nothing' can't exist or be put into words.

[leonidas]

Interesting thread, and it's related to the reason I like to use the subquestion 'Why not?' as much as 'Why?'.

[arensky]

Is the "absence of something" in itself, something?

Yes, because it's something. 

I haven't made up my mind yet, but definitely leaning towards nothing literally being the absence of something...therefore nothing is not something.

But that abscence is something. 

But first, we should define them. I take the definitions to be as follows:

A)"nothing": The absence of something.
B)"something": Matter, that consists of atoms, or antimatter that consists of antiparticles.

A) see above...   B) What's the matter? It's certainly something! 

And we are talking about a philosophical "nothing", not a colloquial "nothing".

So onto my points:

1. Saying "the absence of something is something itself" seems like a logical flaw. An invisible pink unicorn is something. Therefore, the absence of invisible pink unicorns, implies that invisible pink unicorns actually exist, obviously quite the contradiction.

Don't trip yourself up. The pink unicorn exists as a thought or concept, and if it only exists in that form, it exists. 

2. I firmly believe that "nothing" cannot exist. Everything in the entire universe is made up of particles, or antiparticles, and therefore deemed "something". You could argue a vacuum is an example, but a true vacuum is only reached at absolute zero, an impossibility due to the third (?) law of thermodynamics.

If the unicorns exists only in my head/brain, my head/brain are made of particles. If the unicorns exist there then they are something.   

3. One could argue that because the concept of nothing exists, nothing must exist. I've heard this used in many arguments, but again, replace it with the unicorns, and anti-unicorns.

If nothing exists then it is something. 

Just please try to keep it as non-technical as possible, my young mind struggles to keep up. =P

I am very non-technical, hopefully I have helped, and that is something. 

[jlh]

My 'proof' comes from a 1984 movie called "Die Unendliche Geschichte" aka "The NeverEnding Story."

Plot highlights include the following:

"Taking refuge in the attic of his school Bastian opens the book, and a world of fantasy. Learning that the wonderous, beautiful land of Fantasia is being destroyed by a terrible "Nothing" Bastian is taken deeper into the story..."

"The land is being consumed by the "Nothing". and the Empress is dying. A warrior named Atreyu is chosen to save Fantasia from the "Nothing"..."

So you see, "nothing" can be both the absence of something and still have presence as something.

 

[counterpoint]

Nothing is not 'the absence of something', it's the absence of everything.

This is not always true 

How often women say: "I have nothing to wear" 

[mattgreenecomposer]

There is a childrens book called "The gift of nothing" that has a dog and a cat as friends.  I can't remember who the author is but it's brilliantly written in all its simplicity. Find it. Read it.

[danny elfboy]

If you take in consideration the quantum physic perspective, whether there's something  depends on being able to perceive it. Since nothing doesn't allow perception, nothing is not something. Nothing is the destruction of perception while something requires perception.

[term]

Therefore, 'nothing' can't exist or be put into words.

rather the latter.
"Nothing" is unspeakable, because if you even speak of it there is something. Every concept you want to apply to it already is "something", because it (the concept) exists.
The "nothing" is therefore everything that you don't think of, that is nonexistent in your consciousness.
That's the best proof for the existence of nothing: We know, that we don't know.

[chopininov]

What about anti-matter? It's supposedly the absence of matter....which is something...or actually everything...

[m1469]

Is Is

Is is not is not

is not is not Is

is not is not Is Not

Is Not is not Is

Is is Is, not is not

Is Not is not

is not is not

Is Is

[prometheus]

What about anti-matter? It's supposedly the absence of matter....which is something...or actually everything...

No. It's merely a mirror image of what we call matter. It's exactly the same thing. Well, not exactly. But you get the point.

[jlh]

Is Is

Is is not is not

is not is not Is

is not is not Is Not

Is Not is not Is

Is is Is, not is not

Is Not is not

is not is not

Is Is

Is not! 

[m1469]

Is not! 

Is ! 

[goldentone]

Nothing, or at least the idea of nothing, could not exist without something.

[thalberg]

Nothing, or at least the idea of nothing, could not exist without something.

Yes it could.  Because it already doesn't exist.

[schubertiad]

ow.

[quantum]

Nothing really comes to mind at the moment.  I'll try to think up something. 

Anywho, anything is feeling a bit left out. 

[bob3.1415926]

What about anti-matter? It's supposedly the absence of matter....which is something...or actually everything...

Science geek me strikes again, no it isn't. Anti-matter is a different form of matter, where the protons are replace by anti-protons (negative charge) and the electrons are replaced by anti-electrons (or positrons - positive charge). It is still something.

Nothing, or at least the idea of nothing, could not exist without something.

The idea of nothing definitely couldn't exist without someone to think it. Ideas don't come from nowhere (is that somewhere?) 

[goldentone]

Yes it could. Because it already doesn't exist.

 

Nothing, No thing, is a concept that could only come into being when there is something for it to be compared with.  Because nothing is nothing.

[jlh]

Is ! 

Not ! 

 

[pianistimo]

why does bob have numbers beside his name?  is this bob somehow a new configured 'science bob?'  or a completely new bob?  and this anti-matter - how does it exist with hydrogen all around it?  shouldn't hydrogen itself be anti-matter since it floats away so easily?

[pianowolfi]

Is Is

Is is not is not

is not is not Is

is not is not Is Not

Is Not is not Is

Is is Is, not is not

Is Not is not

is not is not

Is Is

I remember

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,4550.msg45059.html#msg45059


It sounds

[bob3.1415926]

why does bob have numbers beside his name?  is this bob somehow a new configured 'science bob?'  or a completely new bob?  and this anti-matter - how does it exist with hydrogen all around it?  shouldn't hydrogen itself be anti-matter since it floats away so easily?

Hi Pianistimo, I'm actually a new Bob. I joined while you were away. Apologies to Bob if he feels I'm encroaching on his turf.
As well as piano, I quite like science yes. In answer to your question. Anti-matter doesn't really exist anywhere near us. It has been successfully created in particle accelerators, but only exists for a tiny fraction of a second before it meets normal matter, and they destroy each other (unfortunately this is what happens).
Hydrogen does weigh something, it's just less than air, so it floats up to the top of the air in very much the same way as a piece of wood under water floats up to the top.
Hope this makes sense. Nice to meet you 

[mephisto]

shouldn't hydrogen itself be anti-matter since it floats away so easily?

Yes exactly you are correct! Why did no one think of this before!?