Philosophy

[brownprose]

---

isn't that a physics question?

casting physics aside, is nothing something? or do you think that nothing is just only a mere representative of the idea of absence [of anything] from the point of view of an observer?

further question, is nothing eternal? does it have a beginning or an end?

[The_Child]

casting physics aside, is nothing something? or do you think that nothing is just only a mere representative of the idea of absence [of anything] from the point of view of an observer?

further question, is nothing eternal? does it have a beginning or an end?

nothing.

wala.

[treize]

^correct... nothing is nothing, dont get confused...

[Tirong-say]

Creating something out of nothing is really confusing when one is not really sure if what we have is really nothing.

[chad_tukes]

casting physics aside, is nothing something? or do you think that nothing is just only a mere representative of the idea of absence [of anything] from the point of view of an observer?

further question, is nothing eternal? does it have a beginning or an end?

it's impossible to cast physics aside. nothing is something. it can be correlated to 'black' which is a color composed of a spectrum of colors rolled into one, as a result of little or less light but not the absence of it.

[brownprose]

nothing.

wala.

So why is there something rather than nothing?

[brownprose]

it's impossible to cast physics aside. nothing is something. it can be correlated to 'black' which is a color composed of a spectrum of colors rolled into one, as a result of little or less light but not the absence of it.

hmmm...nothing is more than just the absence of light or an empty space/void, chad. that's why i avoid bringing up physics to explain it. in fact, it is beyond the domain of physics to explain its causalities...remember, nothing is a sovereign entity that exists by itself whether matter exists or not. so ang pangutana, is nothing something? if it is indeed something, what is its purpose?

[brownprose]

Some thoughts about nothing...

What is to be investigated is being only and—nothing else; being alone and further—nothing; solely being, and beyond being-nothing. What about this Nothing? … Does the Nothing exist only because the Not, i.e. the Negation, exists? Or is it the other way around? Does Negation and the Not exist only because the Nothing exists? … We assert: the Nothing is prior to the Not and the Negation…. Where do we seek the Nothing? How do we find the Nothing…. We know the Nothing…. Anxiety reveals the Nothing…. That for which and because of which we were anxious, was 'really'—nothing. Indeed: the Nothing itself—as such—was present…. What about this Nothing?—The Nothing itself nothings. (Heidegger as quoted by Carnap 1932, 69)

[chad_tukes]

hmmm...nothing is more than just the absence of light or an empty space/void, chad. that's why i avoid bringing up physics to explain it. in fact, it is beyond the domain of physics to explain its causalities...remember, nothing is a sovereign entity that exists by itself whether matter exists or not. so ang pangutana, is nothing something? if it is indeed something, what is its purpose?

but sir, how can you explain the concept of 'nothing' in philosophical terms without mixing a hint of realism into it? you see, philosophy [sometimes] tend to veer off from logical reasoning. anything that goes beyond physics borders on fantasy and mere play of language.

[brownprose]

but sir, how can you explain the concept of 'nothing' in philosophical terms without mixing a hint of realism into it? you see, philosophy [sometimes] tend to veer off from logical reasoning. anything that goes beyond physics borders on fantasy and mere play of language.

Nothing has no constitution or property, sir chad. the reality of nothing in the physical world is just plain and simple absence of matter. i toss the idea (of nothing) to discuss whether nothing and something is contingent or mutually exclusive or something else.