by EGNX » Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:29 pm
Nothing is the lack or absence of anything (including empty area or a vacuum). Colloquially, however, the term is often used to describe a particularly unimpressive thing, event, or object.
The term "nothing" is rarely used mathematically, though it could be said that a set contains "nothing" if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. In other words, the word "nothing" is a colloquial term for an "empty set". "Nothing" and "zero" are closely related but not identical concepts, though, in common parlance, the word "nothing" can also mean "zero" which is a mathematical object that can, for example, symbolize a variable which is "lacking in value". This is why zero can be included in a set. Like "zero," the word "nothing" can symbolize the concept of "a lack of value". But as "nothing" is a linguistic term, it lacks any rigorous definition. Thus it can only be distinguished from context whether or not the word "nothing" represents what mathematicians would call an "empty set" (e.g. "There is nothing here"), or whether it represents what mathematicians would call a "zero" or a lack of value (e.g. "It is worth nothing"). This lack of rigorous definition can allow one to create statements which seem to be logical fallacies—If you have nothing except nothing, do you have something or nothing?
Physically it is necessary to distinguish three things: the vacuum, the emptiness and the nothing. The vacuum is a space not filled with any matter. But it can contain physical fields. The emptiness already would be a space void of matter and any other thing-fields, light, even waves. But the emptiness is still empty space, that is, it possesses the capacity to fit something, but it does not encompass any physically tangible entity. Although, complete emptiness does not exist in the Universe since all the space is filled with gravitational fields and the light that travels through it, neutrinos and other particles and fields, even rarefied are contained within it as well. But not even space itself exists in nothing, and it does not have the ability to be filled with something. Nothing is not a place. Even an infinitesimal point is in certain place of the space (that it is the set of the points, that is, localization possibilities). For definition, when one speaks of existence, one speaks about the existence of something. And nothing is not something. The nothing is a "sign", a linguistic representation of what one thought to be the nothing. Only one knows representations of it, but these representations have mental origin, since the nothing does not exist. The definition of "nothing" is only given by means of the negation of everything which exists. Therefore the nothing is not defined or appraised positively (a definition is to say what the thing is), but only represented, making the relationship between its symbol (the word "nothing") and the idea that one has of the nonexistence of something. The "nothing" does not exist, but it is conceived by operations of the mind.
From a philosophical point of view, the concept of "nothing" can have many interpretations. In fact, one can't even say that nothing does or does not exist. One cannot sense, see, feel, or think nothing. There is no contact with nothing. Nothing is where everything isn't. Visualizing "nothing" would make "something". It could be seen as a physical void or as just a word which only has meaning when used to describe a relationship between different "somethings". A single "correct" definition of nothing could be considered impossible, since "right" and "wrong" do not fit within the confines of nothing.
"In a sense, 'nothing' is a word used in the English language to describe the realization that something which is sought, consciously or unconsciously, can not be detected by using reason, logic or observation using the physical senses. This does not denote the absence of that which is being sought, only that it cannot be observed or reasoned. The basis of all art is the act where the construct of 'nothing' is replaced with the creations of the imagination." - Thomas Mostert
The concept of "nothing" has been studied throughout history by philosophers and theologians; many have found that careful consideration of the notion can easily lead to the logical fallacy of reification. The understanding of "nothing" varies widely between cultures, especially between Western and Eastern cultures and philosophical traditions. For instance, emptiness, unlike "nothingness", is considered a state of mind in Buddhism (See Nirvana, Mu, Enlightenment). Existentialism and Heidegger have brought these two understandings closer together.
Ultimately however, in light of modern conceptual progress in describing the universe in accordance with absolute law, a principle of nothing has been realized which places it as the definitive identity of reality: nothing is bereft of all save existence, therefore meaning it automatically exists as the identity of reality, the existential property. 0 is the uncreatable absolute of certain being therefore, or may conceptually simply be referred to as " ", that which is simply there and comprises the totality of reality, explaining its void impermanence intrinsically and the ultimate lack of compositional substance of thoughts and experience, manifest reality; nature and causality and their law are ultimately definitively explained as well, this also completely confirming Buddhist philosophy (the way of the void and proper realization thereof), thus the truth of universe being something automatic and wordless; naturally this correct comprehension of reality would've seemed relatively beyond the scope of conceptions previous to a relatively enlightened, precise, mathematical understanding of reality's law. The principle was expressly realized by Nolan Aljaddou (AL-juh-doe) in autumn of 2004 and thereafter was given an extensive period of detailed explanatory treatment, the fruits of which are currently on his website referring to the principle as the Law of the Void:
Last edited by
EGNX on Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ramos
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
