0

To clarify my question, I am not asking what is nothing, I am asking a more complex question, what is the lack of anything, which includes the absence of nothing (not anything), while assuming that nothing is something?

For example, if there is "nothing" (not anything) other than coffee (including all of the coffee's atoms, and external substances like sugar) 2 inches in front of you on Earth, the "nothing" mentioned is still an existing property separate from the coffee.

What would happen if you remove the coffee and removed "nothing", and there is only [] (this is not known), my question is what is there when you remove everything including nothing, what is the []?

Please ask me if you want this question drawn out to provide further explanation

Ask questions as needed, and I am not trying to hear the "right" answer, but only your answer.

Thank you in advance for your response.

P.S.: In acknowledgement of the closure of this question, I am going to edit it and comment on the answers later in this week, thank you for the detailed answers and for your care to my question.

One Similarity Many Difference
  • 11
  • 2
  • 1
    Nothing is not something and cannot be included. "Assuming that nothing is something" is incoherent, and so is "you can define nothing as an object" while retaining its usual linguistic role. Language's capacity to produce and manipulate nouns far outstrips what they can sensibly stand for. – Conifold Dec 08 '23 at 04:10
  • Mathematically, the empty set contains no elements, yet it is itself a perfectly valid set. Now you are asking what happens if I have a universe that doesn't even contain the empty set, is that right? It's an empty universe ... which is still something. I don't think you can get around the problem that even in the absence of anything, something must exist ... even if that something is nothing. Am I getting the sense of your question? – user4894 Dec 08 '23 at 04:11
  • Conifold, thank you, I now realize that, so then assume that nothing is not anything (in its proper linguistic role), therefore my question is what exists in a space without any "thing" existing? – One Similarity Many Difference Dec 08 '23 at 04:21
  • user4894, Yes, you are getting sense of my question, but could "thing" be nonexistent/could there be no "things"? – One Similarity Many Difference Dec 08 '23 at 04:25
  • "The lack of anything (including nothing)" is just a meaningless sequence of words. If you don't have a clear and concrete idea of what you mean, then what you're saying doesn't have meaning. It's just words. – causative Dec 08 '23 at 04:52
  • Since you say "in a space" the space itself exists in some sense, presumably. Beyond that, you need more precision on the meaning of "space" and what counts as a "thing". In modern physics, for example, "empty" space always has vacuum energy due to quantum effects. Whether space(time) itself is a "thing" is controversial, see SEP, The Hole Argument. – Conifold Dec 08 '23 at 05:34
  • @One "which includes the absence of nothing (not anything), while assuming that nothing is something?" This is private language. Nothing is not anything, so it is not something, so that the absence of nothing is just the absence of no thing, i.e. everything is in fact here. – Speakpigeon Dec 08 '23 at 09:45

4 Answers4

1

For example, if there is "nothing" (not anything) other than coffee (including all of the coffee's atoms, and external substances like sugar) 2 inches in front of you, the "nothing" mentioned is still an existing property separate from the coffee.

It is simply not logically possible for anyone to prove that there is nothing but coffee, for there has to be the person making the judgement (and the coffee) and a person is something. If there is no object, we say that there is nothing, which just means "no thing". This is no metaphysical concept. Excluding space, which may or may not be something, there is nothing here if and only if there is no thing here. And it has to be specified what here exactly is, because we already know that elsewhere there is something, us to begin with, but also presumably the rest of reality. So it is only conceivable that there is nothing within some predetermined space.

You can define nothing as an object or personify it to understand the question.

Then it is not nothing. It is something. And if it is something, we are not going to say that this something is nothing.

First imagine what would happen if there's only coffee and there is no "nothing" (no separateness from the coffee) that is 2 inches in front of you, assuming that's possible.

If there was truly nothing else but the coffee, then there would be nobody to talk about it. Unless you also define "nobody" as "somebody"?

And then what would happen if you remove the coffee, and there is only [] (this is not known), so my question is what is there when you remove everything including nothing, what is the []?

If you remove the coffee, then you are there to remove it, and then there is something else than the coffee, and so it is not true that there is nothing but the coffee.

I guess you want your cake and eat it. You should buy a ticket to some alternative reality. It costs nothing.

Speakpigeon
  • 7,364
  • 1
  • 11
  • 26
0

Lack of anything is Emptiness , but it needs to be realised. You can’t have a coffee and claim that there is nothing. Having knowledge of Nothing or Emptiness is one thing and having the consciousness of Nothingness or Emptiness is another. You may claim it is a null set but that is as far as the understanding can go. You must give up the Coffee, Internet , Home , Family , Friends etc to experience the true , undistorted, pure meaning of Emptiness and Nothingness. Nature of Emptiness is very difficult to achieve because it involves renunciation.

SacrificialEquation
  • 505
  • 3
  • 8
0

As per your exchange with Conifold, nothing in an absolute sense equates to what you were trying to signify by []. You cannot describe it because it has no properties, and I suspect (although I have no evidence in support of my suspicion) you cannot appreciate it because of inherent limitations of the human imagination. Outer space is quite different from []. Space has properties, and observations suggest it is never empty. Some of the tentative theories of physics, which are attempting to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics, suggest that space may be quantised in some way, which would be a further distinction from [].

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64
0

If you ask the question from your comment

my question is what exists in a space without any "thing" existing?

then an answer could be: In empty space exists spacetime, or more precisely:

Empty space is spacetime without matter.

That's the answer from General Relativity Theory. The constructive part of the answer and the insight of Einstein's theory: Spacetime is a physical quantity with certain measurable geometric properties, e.g. forming gravitational waves.

Of course, this answer is different from any linguistic considerations.

Jo Wehler
  • 30,912
  • 3
  • 29
  • 94