Is nothing truly nothing

is nothing truly nothing, or is it actually something, or maybe it's everything. let me offer you my arguement, and then you tell me what you feel:

We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom.

Hmmm...... I think you're wrong.
Nothing would have to be something in order to exsist, thus making nothing something which would make nothing something instead of nothing which is just technically just a thought which still makes this nothing something. So really nothing is Just an undefinable something, If you can visiualise nothing than nothing would exsist making it become A Thing.
HEHEHEHEHE :D

if there is a concience to percieve that there is nothing there you still have something (the concience) which is paradoxical.

Quote:

---

if there is a concience to percieve that there is nothing there you still have something (the concience) which is paradoxical.

---

My thoughts exactly.

well,craptastic, i agree with you. in the underlying meaning of my arguement is simply that in the absence of something there is truly everything. even in the absence of thought there is something, the brain never ceases to work until the time of complete death. death then results in nothing; which is, as radyk said, paradoxical. you can't have nothing without something. it is impossible. having nothing implies that there was once something, which means that something will always remain. indeed it is a trivial subject, and it is unmistakably SOMETHING to think about.

I can quite easily prove that something is something by kicking you in the nuts and observing the effects.

but you'll have to kick him in his inmaterial nuts. those are made out of nothingness.

okay, maxx. the whole idea of kicking someone in the nuts has no bearing on the discussion of the word nothing. i'm merely trying to provoke thought in those who feel they know everything. i wasn't asking you to input your barbaric and unwitty response. if you had read everything, than you would know that something is something, it's an oxi-moron if it wasn't. what i'm trying to say is that nothing points to itself as being something. and radyk, think about what you said. he'd have to kick me in my immatareail nuts. those are made out of nothingness. first of all immaterial is a word to show that something doesn't exist. so, in conclusion of my short statement to you, nothingness and immaterial are two completely different things. therefore, you have proven to everyone that you don't know what you're talking about which proves to me that you have no idea what's going on.

no. inmaterial stuff can exist. ideas are inmaterial. nothingness is an idea. therefore, nothingness is inmaterial.

you make a valid point. immaterial items are intangible, it doesn't mean that they don't exist, it just means that they can't be touched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadpool

first of all immaterial is a word to show that something doesn't exist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadpool

immaterial items are intangible, it doesn't mean that they don't exist, it just means that they can't be touched.

---

think carefully.

i did think, but now i'm not sure what you're talking about. you can't quote me and tell me to think carefully. but anyway, i'll talk to you guys later, i am gonna go out for a bit.

yes, i can quote you and suggest you to think carefully because you almost called me dumb and when i showed you that i do have enough knowlege to prove you wrong you change the meaning of the word that was in question. inmaterial things exist and the word itself tells you their main property: they are not tangible. ideas and numbers are the first two examples that come to mind. now, because nothingness IS an idea then it exist but it is intangible. you might as well say that the universe is inmersed in nothingness and be neither right or wrong.

All the kids in Elm Street would be dead if they read this thread.

radyk, i never even insisted on the thought that you were dumb. if i wanted to call you dumb, i wouldn't have gone about doing it in a way that true dumb people couldn't understand. now i'm sorry if i offended you in any way, but that was not my intention. i agree with you that immaterial is an existing property, and i agree with you that nothing is imaterial, but we had a problem with miscommunication and in that cross of word fire, you got out of it that i almost called you dumb. in no way did i mention that you were dumb, just simply taking my arguement to a totally different level. i never changed the meaning of the word in question because the word in question already has a definition. you can't change what already is. you didn't prove me wrong because there was nothing wrong to me prove about. i was simply stating something that i felt should have been brought to other's attention. that is not wrong, nor is it right. it is esentially neutral in the light that on this subject there is no right or wrong. it's an opinion from a very opinionated individual. i was looking for someone that could handle an intellectual conversation on my level, and in you i have found that person. but yet again, as in most of my conversations, we have strayed from the original subject of the matter. we have gone from proving that nothing is actually a something to telling eachother that they are wrong. that is not intellectual speech, it's childish schoolground play. we might as well call eachother doodoo heads and tell who's daddy can beat up who's daddy. and forgive me for being above the typical shouting match. and look over your statement, you have agreed with every last word i said. it seems that we have the same point of view, just different ways of looking at it

and levian, you are truly a smartass. i like that comment, because it is true. Freddy was simply an idea that people brought up and he baceme a nightmare, which is still an idea. he was an idea that was personified in belief that he truly existed. an eye opener, if you will.

Nothingness is beyond our comprehension. We fail at understanding it the second we begin to try to visualise it. It cannot be visualised, because there is nothing there. There is nothing to see, but equally there is nothing to NOT see. It isn't seeing nothing, it isn't blindness, it isn't seeing all black, it is simply... not. It's not seeing, in a far more profound way than blindness is not seeing. It's also NOT not seeing. Because it isn't anything at all.

The root of our problem is that our minds and our languages do not cater to the idea of nothingness. By definition the application of a word is giving it something, no matter how intangible and weightless. The only way to remotely begin to approach the concept of nothingness is to reject any concepts applied to it, as well as rejecting that in itself.

well, MILF, it seems like you have certainly brought this discussion to a completely new level just as radyk had before. you are quite right when you say that the thought of nothingness is a profound idea. whoever thought of the concept behind nothing is truly a genius. it's just hard to imagine that no one had before thought to question this. thank you all for participating. i think i'm going to write a small paper on the idea behind nothing. now argue a little bit so i can get something going.