On Nothing in a void.

[arfa brane]

No. "0" is the symbol. It's the symbol for a number.

Why are you repeating what I posted? After your "No", which is universally accepted as a symbol for disagreement, you then agree with me.

And the value 0 is not nothing. It's a value, like all other values.

"The value of 0 is not nothing"? Sorry but nothing is exactly its value.

I have an apple and then add no apples to it, that means I add nothing. Nothing exists in that sense, and it also strongly implies nothing = zero. As you say yourself:

"Zero" has a relation with "nothing", yes. We can say for example that there is zero things in this box, which would mean the same as saying that there is nothing in it.

The relation is equality, in fact.

 

[Speakpigeon]

One could approach the question from a perspective that "nothing" is a metaphyisical condition of being "permittive" of everything.

Isn't it the same as saying that wherever there's something there also nothing?! I'm not sure how that would not bring some confusion.

I don't see anything metaphysical about the concept of nothing. I take the only legitimate question to be about what we mean when we use the word "nothing".

Still, maybe my imagination is deficient. So, could you explain to me how seeing nothing as being absolutely permittive would improve our understanding of reality?

As is it, it seems to me that all you're doing is try to assign a very different meaning to a very ordinary and simple word that we have to use extensively every day of our lives. Just try to think of the situation where suddenly some people start to use the word "butter" to mean love. Confusion.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Why are you repeating what I posted? After your "No", which is universally accepted as a symbol for disagreement, you then agree with me."The value of 0 is not nothing"? Sorry but nothing is exactly its value.

I have an apple and then add no apples to it, that means I add nothing. Nothing exists in that sense, and it also strongly implies nothing = zero. As you say yourself:The relation is equality, in fact.

It seems we don't understand English quite in the same way. If you don't understand what I say or if you pick and choose and don't take into account the whole of what I say, there's no point having a conversation.

I can only repeat myself here:

No. "0" is the symbol. It's the symbol for a number. The number 0. We normally talk of the value of things that are not numbers, since a number precisely is the value of some other thing, for example the value of the result of an operation, or the value of the temperature.

So "0" certainly stands for something, which may or may not be just the concept of a number, but it's something.

And the value 0 is not nothing. It's a value, like all other values.

Try harder or just ignore me.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

I say

0 is a symbol.

You say:

No. "0" is the symbol.

So I should write x = "0", not x = 0?
I say

It stands for a number whose value is . . . nothing.

You say:

It's the symbol for a number. The number 0.

So is 0 a symbol, or is 0 "the number 0", or is "0" the symbol? Also:

It seems we don't understand English quite in the same way.

So you say . . .

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not hard enough apparently.
EB

 

[Write4U]

Still, maybe my imagination is deficient. So, could you explain to me how seeing nothing as being absolutely permittive would improve our understanding of reality?

IMO, it makes expressed reality a dynamic cosmic imperative.

When there is a idealized universal condition, its function (movement) is always "in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

 

[Write4U]

As is it, it seems to me that all you're doing is try to assign a very different meaning to a very ordinary and simple word that we have to use extensively every day of our lives. Just try to think of the situation where suddenly some people start to use the word "butter" to mean love. Confusion.
EB

Oh I agree, but we are not talking about butter. How many people have really investigated the profound implication contained in the term and meaning of the word "potential" (that which may become reality)?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh I agree, but we are not talking about butter. How many people have really investigated the profound implication contained in the term and meaning of the word "potential" (that which may become reality)?

Whether you realise it or not, nothing in your post makes much sense. You're not even trying to reply to what I said or asked so there would be no point in me trying to have a discussion with you. You're just pleased to make metaphysical noises. You're apparently incapable of explaining yourself so I hope you at least understand what you say.

Please ignore my future posts.
EB

 

[Write4U]

Whether you realise it or not, nothing in your post makes much sense. You're not even trying to reply to what I said or asked so there would be no point in me trying to have a discussion with you. You're just pleased to make metaphysical noises. You're apparently incapable of explaining yourself so I hope you at least understand what you say.

Please ignore my future posts.
EB

As long as you are only capable of criticizing other posts without offering anything of substance yourself , I shall.....

 

[river]

A Void has nothing in it .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

A Void has nothing in it .

We know that but what is in nothing?
Alex

 

[Speakpigeon]

A Void has nothing in it .

And then is there any region of space which is an actual void? Is it even physically possible for any region of space to be an actual void?
EB

 

[Write4U]

A Void has nothing in it .

Should we not start with the actual definition of the word?

nothing

noun
Definition of nothing
: something that does not exist
b : the absence of all magnitude or quantity; also : zero 1a
c : nothingness, nonexistence

Webster

 

[Speakpigeon]

Should we not start with the actual definition of the word?
Webster

River used the word "nothing" in one of the usual senses and the context is sufficient to help us decide which one, so there was no need for a definition. I think we can all understand what was meant.

Also, it's a bit late in the day for you to call for a definition. What kept you until now?

You should have suggested this in your first response to the OP, like I did myself.
EB

 

[Write4U]

River used the word "nothing" in one of the usual senses and the context is sufficient to help us decide which one, so there was no need for a definition. I think we can all understand what was meant.

Also, it's a bit late in the day for you to call for a definition. What kept you until now?

You should have suggested this in your first response to the OP, like I did myself.
EB

Well, I am now reintroducing a philosophical question if NO THING can exist at all?
This presents a contradiction in terms.

 

[arfa brane]

Ah yes, Philosophy. Is there a philosophy of numbers? Philosophy and logic are pretty close, numbers are logical (at least, when you consider 'operations' on numbers which are too).

Is it true that, we would have no concept for "something" if we had no concept for "nothing"? Even though nothing "doesn't exist", we still need to know what it is. In fact there are different kinds of nothing.

I can show you nothing exists by say, evacuating all the air from a glass jar. You say "where is nothing", I say, "right there, in the jar, see?".
I can say I haven't got "anything" in my pockets (although strictly speaking, I do, like some air molecules, bits of dust and dirt, etc), and I can show you this. I definitely require there, that we both understand my meaning of the use of nothing (as a concept).

This concept is easiest to use when we really mean "nothing bounded by something" (e.g. the glass jar with no air in it). What we usually mean is emptiness, but is that really the only kind of nothingness we conceive of?

 

[Write4U]

Ah yes, Philosophy. Is there a philosophy of numbers? Philosophy and logic are pretty close, numbers are logical (at least, when you consider 'operations' on numbers which are too).

Is it true that, we would have no concept for "something" if we had no concept for "nothing"? Even though nothing "doesn't exist", we still need to know what it is. In fact there are different kinds of nothing.

I can show you nothing exists by say, evacuating all the air from a glass jar. You say "where is nothing", I say, "right there, in the jar, see?".
I can say I haven't got "anything" in my pockets (although strictly speaking, I do, like some air molecules, bits of dust and dirt, etc), and I can show you this. I definitely require there, that we both understand my meaning of the use of nothing (as a concept).

This concept is easiest to use when we really mean "nothing bounded by something" (e.g. the glass jar with no air in it). What we usually mean is emptiness, but is that really the only kind of nothingness we conceive of?

I can understand the concept of nothing in relation to something, but that requires for something to exist to begin with.
We can even speak of a condition of nothingness, but then the condition itself would be something which does not exist in reality.

But in the end the recognition of non-existence is the definition of "nothing". It's an observational problem. "Nothing" cannot be observed, except in relation to something which can be observed.

Comes to mind Schroedinger's cat which to the observer is both alive and dead until actual observation establishes which. It is a contradiction in terms. In reality it can only be one or the other..

 

[river]

Nothing is not just what can be observed . It is also about what nothing can not do .

I have mentioned before , but most important nothing does not have the quality of the ability to manifest into something . Nor change into something .

No movement , nor change , will transform nothing into something .

 

[Write4U]

Nothing is not just what can be observed . It is also about what nothing can not do .

I have mentioned before , but most important nothing does not have the quality of the ability to manifest into something . Nor change into something .

No movement , nor change , will transform nothing into something .

But sentience would not be able to create something out of nothing either.
The question is if nothing can have a dynamic aspect to it. A vacuum does.

 

[river]

But sentience would not be able to create something out of nothing either.
The question is if nothing can have a dynamic aspect to it. A vacuum does.

Of course , a sentience is something .