Does Nothing Exist?

[Azrienoch]

This is a question I've just been pondering for a while, and wanted to see what others thought;

Does nothing (noun, as zero) exist? (not to be read as, "Doesn't anything exist?")
If it does exist, isn't it contradicting it's own definition, what it represents?
If it doesn't exist, how is the concept available to our understanding?

edited for clarification

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not certain what you are asking. Could you expand on your definition of "nothing"?

 

[jan]

I'm not certain what you are asking. Could you expand on your definition of "existing"?

 

[Upchurch]

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is a concept only, and it exists as a concept to communicate the lack of something.

 

[Azrienoch]

Hmmm...I'll try to expand;
Things exist, but does nothing (as a thing) exist. For example, Space can contain something, and it can contain nothing, but space, itself, is a thing, so whatever the opposite of space is...

I'm sorry, please forgive my ADD. I have a problem with forming complete thoughts.

 

[Piscivore]

This is a question I've just been pondering for a while, and wanted to see what others thought;

Does nothing (noun, as zero) exist? (not to be read as, "Doesn't anything exist?")

Sure, it is the house where no-one lives, you know, in nowhere.

If it does exist, isn't it contradicting it's own definition, what it represents?

No, it is what it is by definition. How can something contradict its own definition?

If it doesn't exist, how is the concept available to our understanding?

How is the concept of "Frodo" available to our understanding?

 

[jan]

Welcome, Azrienoch. I would say "nothing" is not your ordinary thing, it is a special case, and therefore neither "it exists" nor "it doesn't exist" hits the nail.

Would you say an abstract concept exists? Does "Truth" exist? Does the number 9 exist? Does the number π exist? Does the empty set exist? Some flavors of set theory have the empty set as the number zero. Does that change your view whether the empty set exists or not?

If I would be forced to make a decision, I would say it is more convenient to say that "nothing" exists. But I think of it more as a convention.



By the way, I have written a text that proves that nothing exists (this time, as in: there is no thing that exists). I will be posting that as soon as I am sure that I will have the time to reply to replies, so stay tuned...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am, as everyone knows, clueless about philosophy.

Do philosophers struggle with the question of whether an abstract concept "actually exists"? If so, is it a different sort of ontological existent from something like a chair? Is there any point whatsoever, even in our deepest imagination, to waste time grappling with such questions?

~~ Paul

 

[chance]

Azrienoch

Hmmm...I'll try to expand;
Things exist, but does nothing (as a thing) exist. For example, Space can contain something, and it can contain nothing, but space, itself, is a thing, so whatever the opposite of space is...

I don’t think nothing can exist, e.g. imagine a small region of space far away from anything, assume it’s a perfect vacuum, yet you can still see the stars through it, therefore that space is filled with light, it’s not nothing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But if that space is shielded from light and radiation, then there is nothing in it. Right?

 

[Azrienoch]

The reason I asked myself in the first place, and also the reason I asked here, is not to "answer" the question, but to understand the question and the concepts in it. While some might say that nothing is a concept, and while the concept exists, nothing doesn't...but I like to stop and ask "Why?" What if it does? What then? What is it that I need to understand to understand the question further?

Please go on, I'm enjoying the responses.

 

[epepke]

The closest that I can come up with as a thing that exists and is as close to nothing as such things go is a region of space sandwiched by two metal plates that are close enough together that there is no room for the spontaneous generation of virtual particles. However, that still isn't quite nothing, as space and time still exist within that region.

 

[Cosmo]

The closest that I can come up with as a thing that exists and is as close to nothing as such things go is a region of space sandwiched by two metal plates that are close enough together that there is no room for the spontaneous generation of virtual particles. However, that still isn't quite nothing, as space and time still exist within that region.

Well, let's assume that we construct a metal sphere that shields its interior from radiation. Let's also assume that the interior is a perfect vacuum.

It may be true that no particles (protons, electrons, and so forth) exist inside it, but, as epepke pointed out, space and time still might. That, in turn, sparks a debate as to the nature of space and time - do they exist?

Space might be defined as our (human) perception of the three-dimensional world we seem to think we live in. Is that a human concept, or does it actually exist?

Time might be defined as our (human) perception of how things in this three-dimensional world seem to change from moment to moment. Is that a human concept, or does it actually exist?

I'm not offering an argument either way, just proposing an interesting situation (the sphere) that might provide some discussion.

 

[epepke]

Well, let's assume that we construct a metal sphere that shields its interior from radiation. Let's also assume that the interior is a perfect vacuum.

It may be true that no particles (protons, electrons, and so forth) exist inside it, but, as epepke pointed out, space and time still might. That, in turn, sparks a debate as to the nature of space and time - do they exist?

And virtual particles, which come into existence spontaneously and then rapidly annihilate themselves. Even though the net effect is nothing, it's still something, because any light shone through this will take longer to get through.

Since most cosmologies assume a spacetime that can itself expand, then it seems reasonable to conclude that spacetime does exist.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Azrienoch- I honestly suspect this is one of the class of questions which appear meaningful when written, but are actually ill-formed , being either nonsensical , self-referential, or both. Such questions lead to paradox and are attractors for certain kinds of minds- especially those interested in semantics, epistemi-thingy and sheer perversity.

The only meaningful answer is banal:-

Yes, "nothing" exists. It is a word. (Page ref supplied if requested). The word is a label for a concept.

As a concept - ie separating meaning from the banal actuality of the word, clearly nothing does not exist- indeed that is it's prime characteristic. It is not to be found, anywhere. The absence of nothing is what it's all about.

Such arguments are great fun, but I'm not sure they actually tell us anything useful, except as illustrative examples of Godel's incompleteness theorem as applied to language systems.

Anyway, welcome to the madhouse.

 

[Azrienoch]

It may be true that no particles (protons, electrons, and so forth) exist inside it, but, as epepke pointed out, space and time still might. That, in turn, sparks a debate as to the nature of space and time - do they exist?

Perhaps space is relative, as time is relative, to a specific entity, making the concept of nothing relative. Is it possible to relate nothing to either space or time?

Such questions lead to paradox and are attractors for certain kinds of minds- especially those interested in semantics, epistemi-thingy and sheer perversity.

Why semantics and epistemology are automatically related to perversity, I don't know, but aside from that, I agree. Thank you for the welcome, by the way.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why semantics and epistemology are automatically related to perversity, I don't know, but aside from that, I agree. Thank you for the welcome, by the way.

I'll second the welcome. (Puss: Count me third)

And, on this board, we can relate anything to perversity. We can even relate nothing to perversity if we need to.

 

[Piscivore]

Why semantics and epistemology are automatically related to perversity, I don't know, but aside from that, I agree. Thank you for the welcome, by the way.

See the first sentence I posted in this thread, and the first sentence in this post of yours I'm quoting.

 

[Gestahl]

The closest that I can come up with as a thing that exists and is as close to nothing as such things go is a region of space sandwiched by two metal plates that are close enough together that there is no room for the spontaneous generation of virtual particles. However, that still isn't quite nothing, as space and time still exist within that region.

I though that when you did that, the virtual particles were still there, only a few less of them, thus making the plates come together (Casimir effect). I thought virtual particles are necessity in any area as a by product of zero-point fluctuations... which are not stoppable. I was under the impression that some particles were generated... am I incorrect?

To answer the OP's question:

Nothing does exist, but only within contexts. Nothing is defined as the abscence of something relative to another known state. Certainly "nothing" exists, but only as a relative state, not a thing unto itself. For example, I can say there is nothing in my sink, but I am speaking within the context of dishes, or perhaps water and soap.

"Nothing", when defined as a lack of everything, is not a valid concept, since if everything is missing, there is no existence there. Potentially, we could say that outside the universe there is nothing, but that is not even a valid statement because "outside the universe" does not exist. "Nothing" in and of itself does not exist, but that which it refers to, i.e. a lack of something, certainly does exist and so do things that are lacking within the context you are speaking.