"Nothing" isn't a real concept

[dwarven]

I feel that it's just something we say in conversation when there really is something. What if we eliminated this word from our vocabulary?

[Kalyyn]

I feel that "nothing" is a legitimate concept, but that raises an interesting question. Say you have an empty void that is isolated from the rest of the universe. Would that be "nothing"? Or would the presence of a void itself be something? Obviously there is "nothing" in it, but "it" as a space does actually exist. So can it be considered "nothing"?

I say yes, but it's still quite the question.

[Deleted]

Although "nothing" might mean non-existence of something, people sometimes when they use this in a conversation, small talk or when someone wants to talk to you, if you say nothing it basically means "f*ck off", "leave me alone", "don't want to talk". Just because they "nothing" in a conversation doesn't mean they are using its literally meaning you know?

That's how I feel about it, although I think I might not be explaining it well.

[Deleted]

Nothing is one of those words we use to describe something easier, even though it isn't something which exists.

Like cold describing the absence of heat, or luck describing a series of actions leading up to one favourable outcome.

[dwarven]

I feel that "nothing" is a legitimate concept, but that raises an interesting question. Say you have an empty void that is isolated from the rest of the universe. Would that be "nothing"? Or would the presence of a void itself be something? Obviously there is "nothing" in it, but "it" as a space does actually exist. So can it be considered "nothing"?

I say yes, but it's still quite the question.

Some food for thought is that just because we can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. "Empty space" does contain photons, virtual particles and atoms, and possibly other things we haven't discovered yet. And thank you. That's exactly where I wanted this topic to go.

[Authary]

Are you talking about the concept or the word ? As a concept it's totally OK. However, most people use the word in the wrong way.

If you can describe an object (generally speaking) with a concept that is not equivalent to the concept "nothing" that means it doesn't belong to the extent of "nothing". Obviously "a void" is not "nothing", it's just a space without other things in it. It's "something".

[Ryuukon]

The concept of nothing is totally valid. Imagine that there is nothing. No space. No time. Everything that exists now... simply does not exist. The universe before the Big Bang. The point where anything is anything is smaller than anything we could possibly comprehend. Outside of that one infinitesimally small point is just that. Nothing. It is not space, it is not time. It very simply is just nothing. It's almost existential thinking about it for too long.

Oh! Sorry, you meant in a spoken word. When someone says "nothing", they really mean "never mind". As in, they don't want to talk about it. If we eliminated the word, another word would come into being. Like "shnarglefuz". "What's up with you?" "Shnarglefuz."

Dismissing a word doesn't mean the emotional connotation doesn't exist. It's a vocal and cognitive concept more than it is a word. How are you going to eliminate that?

[FathomFear]

Some food for thought is that just because we can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. "Empty space" does contain photons, virtual particles and atoms, and possibly other things we haven't discovered yet. And thank you. That's exactly where I wanted this topic to go.

I think you're misrepresenting how people use language. For example, if I point to a glass on my table and say "The glass is empty", I'm not wrong just because there's air in it. There's a mutual understanding that the emptiness refers to a lack of liquids, not a lack of any imaginable substance. Not every phrase and term we use is a scientific statement.

[Wikiy]

I think you're misrepresenting how people use language. For example, if I point to a glass on my table and say "The glass is empty", I'm not wrong just because there's air in it. There's a mutual understanding that the emptiness refers to a lack of liquids, not a lack of any imaginable substance. Not every phrase and term we use is a scientific statement.

Yes but you can't treat something outside the universe as nothing just because nothing fills it. That's the point, there is nothing to be filled, no 3D space, simply nothing, as far as we know.

[Wolfgang777]

Anybody seen that Episode of The Colbert Report? Some guy wrote a book about how nothing is absurd. There is always something from nothing. He was slandering religion left and right and Stephen asked him about it. After the guy retorted, Stephen then said - Paraphrasing- "Well if something is from nothing, then you are saying God is nothing. So doesn't that mean he is something?" Crowd went friggen wild.
I am aware this has nothing to do with the topic other than the word but it came to my mind.

[Deleted]

you could say the same thing about the Number 0
however it is also the most important number too. Nothing is an important concept to describe the absence of anything, to remove the concept of it would cause havoc in day to day life.

[Dendrek]

I think you're misrepresenting how people use language. For example, if I point to a glass on my table and say "The glass is empty", I'm not wrong just because there's air in it. There's a mutual understanding that the emptiness refers to a lack of liquids, not a lack of any imaginable substance. Not every phrase and term we use is a scientific statement.

I was going to say something along the same lines. When we use the word to describe the supposed lack of the existence of a thing, we're usually referring to a specific thing within a bound space rather than to the lack of anything at all.

A statement like, "There's nothing in that room" for example, has the potential to be reasonably accurate if you aren't being literal. Most likely the true context of that statement would be "There's nothing in that room that you would be interested in finding" or "There's nothing in that room that you're currently looking for."

In general though, even in proper context, the word is used inaccurately. Often, the word isn't used to describe actual substances of any kind. Instead, it refers to ideas or events. "There's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind." "Nothing could be further from the truth." In these cases, it is used inaccurately because it's being used hyperbolically. The realm of thought and possibility is unbounded and unlimited. There can never be a point beyond which there is nothing else. But the word "nothing" when used in that context implies that either it is bounded or it is limited -- defying the nature of the context in which it is applied.

Whereas in other cases the word doesn't imply a limit so much as it inaccurately categorizes a concept. "There's nothing wrong with me." "There's nothing I want to do." In this case, the word is being used both dishonestly and as a distraction. It's declaring the non-existence of a thing which really does exist to avoid the issue. The issue being either that they may be uncomfortable talking about it, they think it might not be understood or accepted, or they have no interest in engaging in it with that person to whom they're speaking.

[FathomFear]

Yes but you can't treat something outside the universe as nothing just because nothing fills it. That's the point, there is nothing to be filled, no 3D space, simply nothing, as far as we know.

Ultimately, nothingness is a perfectly acceptable concept. It's heavily used in philosophy as a way in which of bring its opposite--beingness--into focus. Heidegger's Being and Time and Satre's Being and Nothingness are probably the two biggest examples.

The OP says it's not a valid concept, which I don't think makes sense. He should probably rephrase his statement to say that nothingness can never "happen" in an observable manner, as by default observing something means something is there. Even if it's atoms or something. But none of that means it doesn't work as a concept.

[Deleted]

you're either too young or trolling,if it's the second congrats for having our pseudo-scientists here debating about it...

[Wikiy]

Ultimately, nothingness is a perfectly acceptable concept. It's heavily used in philosophy as a way in which of bring its opposite--beingness--into focus. Heidegger's Being and Time and Satre's Being and Nothingness are probably the two biggest examples.

The OP says it's not a valid concept, which I don't think makes sense. He should probably rephrase his statement to say that nothingness can never "happen" in an observable manner, as by default observing something means something is there. Even if it's atoms or something. But none of that means it doesn't work as a concept.

Philosophically, yes, it is a valid concept, but i was basing my reply on physics, which says there is no such thing as nothing (an empty void filled with, well, nothing... it doesn't exist). But don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to say it's not a valid concept for usage in life, just giving a physical perspective. ^^

[caractacus]

Ultimately, nothingness is a perfectly acceptable concept. It's heavily used in philosophy as a way in which of bring its opposite--beingness--into focus. Heidegger's Being and Time and Satre's Being and Nothingness are probably the two biggest examples.

The OP says it's not a valid concept, which I don't think makes sense. He should probably rephrase his statement to say that nothingness can never "happen" in an observable manner, as by default observing something means something is there. Even if it's atoms or something. But none of that means it doesn't work as a concept.

Yep I think it's a valid concept in the same way that infinity is

[time0ut]

Alice: "What would you like to eat?"
Bob: "Nothing. I am not hungry."

Not quite sure what the problem is what that...

[Dezerte]

"Nothing is no thing, denoting the absence of something. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness, as well as object as a concept in the Frege-Church ontology.

In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance. Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing."

If you ask wikipedia.

Further down the page, does nothingness exist?

"In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Where there is supposedly empty space there are constant quantum fluctuations with particles continually popping into and out of existence. It had long been theorized that space is distinct from a void of nothingness in that space consists of some kind of aether, with luminiferous aether serving as the transmission medium for propagating light waves."

[DEATHETERNAL]

I feel that "nothing" is a legitimate concept, but that raises an interesting question. Say you have an empty void that is isolated from the rest of the universe. Would that be "nothing"? Or would the presence of a void itself be something? Obviously there is "nothing" in it, but "it" as a space does actually exist. So can it be considered "nothing"?

I say yes, but it's still quite the question.

Hilariously close to what Commander Data said in Star Trek: TNG

OT: Nothing is an entirely relevant and needed concept when dealing with higher dimensions which may legitimately contain nothing.

[StayTuned]

In a philosophical way, "nothing" is a perfectly fine word. I see myself answering questions from friends with "nothing" more often than not.


What are you thinking about? - Nothing; as in: About nothing important.