Is nothing something? - Page 2

If nothing is indeed something then is something nothing .... awh you gives a darn...it doesn't mean anything

ah here i go bringing up that aether thing again.

quote:

---

To return to basics, if all the air molecules are pumped out of a chamber, the chamber still contains residual radiation (electromagnetic noise from stars, x-rays, and heat radiation). Even before quantum mechanics, it was shown by classical radiation theory that if the temperature of the container is lowered to absolute zero, there remains a residual amount of thermal energy that can not by any means be removed. This residual energy in an empty container at absolute zero, was named "zero-point energy."

---

essentially "aether"... meaning that in any space (as we know thus far) there is always something.

everything that is considered "something" has a property. like, if something is considered "big" it has that property. all these properties must have opposites that oppose them. the property itself is an adding, while the opposite is a taking away. however, both of these are riciprocal. big is adding big, and small is adding small, and both are the taking away of each other. as far as void is concerned, its opposite is matter, and the two oppose each other. so, void is something because it has this property. all of existence(void included) has the property that it exists. so, in order for something to not exist, it has to oppose existence, which makes it an opposite of existence, giving it the property that it opposes existence, in a sense, giving it existence. so, in order for nonexistence to be, it needs to be propertyless. however, if it opposes existence, then it has property, and so exists. the only conclusion i can come to is that nonexistence...doesn't exist. at least, it is unfathomable and unable to talk or think about, because anything we can concieve has to have property.

windup....kinda like if stupid ppl didn't exist, then we would have no reference point to prove that smart ppl existed...yes?

So really you can't have something unless there exists an oppposite something;
love - hate
something - nothing

which means nothing is something simply because it is the opposite of something.

So now if u think that nonexistance does not exist, then we and everything we know of, shouldn't exist . If we don't have a reference point like nonexistance, how can we prove we exist?

Well, I don't think that if we can't concieve non-existance, it doesn't exist. I mean, Look around you, Einstein sure doesn't exist, abraham lincom is also non-existant.....

yes they don't exist...but we have a reference point to prove that. And that being that we know they existed. "the opposite".

I think what windupnostril was implying, was that when you take "matter" that exists, where is the opposite? Everything that we know of has some sort of matter in it,even space. So right now we can't prove that there exists a "nonexistance"

In order for nothing to be truly nothing there has to be absolutely nothing in that nothing.

Yes, we can never in a billion years concieve 'true' nothing. I mean no one can imajine what would it have been like before the creation of the universe, when there was even no black 'space nothingness', when even nothing did not exist.

angel of death -- it doesn't not exist because we can't conceive it, it doesn't exist because it has no properties, no opposite, and we can't think of it because it has no properties. how can we think of something that is composed of nothing? there would be nothing to think about. the best we can do is think of this thing called "nonexistence," which isn't truly a representation of nonexistence because it has properties that we can juggle around in our heads, such as that it "doesn't exist," which is a property and an opposite of existence.

you guyd aren't tired of this pointless talk yet ? thinking about stuff like that just makes my head hurt b/c now i know forsure that i'll never find the answer to a question like that ... here is a good answer to the question ( IMO )
NOTHING IS NOTHING
get over it
move on with your life

*not adressed to anyone in perticular*

ROFl
This is what philosophy is about =D
But if Nothing is Something, and everything has to have an oppsosite, then Something will not have an opposite because nothing is something?

Man you hit the nail on the head there WarriorX-
But then also if nothing is now something we no longer have use for the word nothing which is something so then what is the stuff that was formerly known as nothing.

NOTHING-
1.NO THING
2.NOT ANYTHING
3.PERSON OR THING OF NO IMPORTANCE
4.NON-EXISTENCE
5.NO AMOUNT
6.NOUGHT
adv.
1.NOT AT ALL
2.IN NO WAY

IR ME--i guess its something that we can't comprehend, but we try to, and fail with false representations of it, and this attempt to think about it messes with our heads, because what we think about always turns out to be something.

anyway, WARRIOR X, i think you're right--if something is the opposite to nothing, then that gives nothing property. however, since nothing is lack of all things, and property is a thing, then something and nothing must not oppose one another. however, they have to, if something is to exist. this is clearly a paradox, so i think its impossible to figure out exactly how it works--it is beyond human comprehension, kind of like the concept of infinity, etc.

DAISYGIRL--i think the dictionary did a poor job defining nothing. the definition should look something like this...

Nothing:

HAhahahahahahaaha, Windupnostril =D

I think you answered it. Ill see if me and my friends will end the dispute.

LOL, i like your decription of what nothing should b like in the dictionary.
LOL

The answer is . . . Nothing IS Something, in fact its Something very specific however Something isn't the opposite of Nothing, but it does contain the Nothing property as in Nothing Specific. Something is broad and Non-Specific . . . You could say that Something and Nothing are antigens to a degree because each contains the property of the other, but they aren't opposites in that their use does not negate each other . . . "I was doing something, the something I was doing was nothing." If they were true opposites that sentence wouldn't even be gramatically correct.

To do Nothing is the act of inaction. Inaction is a specific act. To do Something is the act of doing a thing non-specific.