Impossibilities

[Rade]

Let's rewrite this as well:

 

Absolute nothing is (=) the void of every "void of something."

 

If the void of every void of something (=) absolute something

I see a problem, a contradiction, because the "void of every void of something" cannot at the same time be absolute nothing and absolute something. This logic leads to the proposition that absolute nothing (=) absolute something.

 

The reason is that relative nothing is still something, for it can not be absolute nothing.

But as you said, "Let's do it this way. Let's define relative nothing as: some nothing = void of something." And, if everything (absolute something) must have no voids, then relative nothing having voids must be outside everything, and be a part of relative something.

 

So, I do see that you have falsified the proposition that:

 

Absolute something is the devoid of every nothing = impossible (given that a relative nothing is possible)

[lawcat]

Yes, I introduced an error. It should've been written as: Absolute "something" is the void of every void of something.

 

So now that we know that there is everything, or absolute something, we can go back to: If everything includes absolute nothing, and if absolute nothing is devoid of everything, then nothing is the devoid of nothing, and that is an impossibility.

 

First, by definition absolute nothing is the void of everything. This definition is absurd to the definition of everything which includes nothing. So the only way absolute nothing is possible is if outside of everything. And if that is so, then it is either a fiction, or we shall never know it; in other words it is not possible.

[Vox]

Rade, I apologize for not following Sartre. I never studied him, and in-itself and for-itself is hard for me to understand.

 

Nothing is a logical invention. There are two logical nothings, absolute and relative. Relative nothing is the devoid of something. Absolute nothing is the devoid of everything.

 

I agree with you that relatively speaking there can be nothing--it is possible. However, absolute nothing must be impossible.

 

If everything includes absolute nothing, and if absolute nothing is devoid of everything, then nothing is the devoid of nothing, and that is an impossibility.

 

 

 

Finally, if Dirac suggests that we can experimentally find nothing, he is a looney.

 

Likewise absolute everything should be also impossble with this logic ?

So we are left with relative nothing and relative something which are initially the same, because they can manifest itself only when both exist ? So where are "something" or nothing" exist alone/separate, only in our minds?

 

I agree your Dirac quote, if you try to find, you only find something ..contrast of Nothing

[Vox]

Yes, and this comes up frequently in wave dynamics, such as cancellation of mechanical waves.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's do it this way. Let's define relative nothing as: some nothing = void of something.

Then from the quote, "something is the void of some nothing" can be written as: Something is the void of "the void of something." That "void of the void of something" = something itself. Therefore, something is something itself, which is true.

 

 

 

Let's rewrite this as well: Absolute something is the void of every "void of something." If the void of every void of something = absolute something, then Absolute something is itself, which is true and possible. I would call such absolute something everything. Within 100 percent certainty there is everything which is itself and contains no nothing. Not even relative nothing. The reason is that relative nothing is still something, for it can not be absolute nothing. However, there can be absolute something, and that is everything.

 

I am not following your logic, how you can define one to be more than another? if 100% certainty there is everything, which I do not undertand how it is defined first of all and secondly to absolute something to manifest itself there has to be absolute nothing also. Something is not "better" than nothing and everything is not "better" than absolute nothing due they go togehter..both are equal..one manifested in 2 different but equal ways. Otherwise they could not manifest the absolutes ? Same way as you describe "you" at the same time you will describe which is not "you"

[Vox]

Absolute something is the devoid of every nothing = impossible (given that a relative nothing is possible)

 

Only way I could describe the absolute nothing being impossible is that we assume it to us being logically impossble to "understand" thefore "absolute nothing" manifests itself to us as being impossible..contrast of everything is manifested being (absolutely) possible

 

Therefore absolute nothing can not be named or described only that of being "impossible" (therfore not existing). If we try to define it will only reflect something and possible

[Rade]

So we are left with relative nothing and relative something which are initially the same, because they can manifest itself only when both exist ?

Here is what I concluded above about relative nothing and relative something:

 

1. Relative nothing is the devoid of some thing = possible (the expectation of the other not fulfilled). My example was, suppose your friend tells you they will meet you at 12:00 for lunch. They never arrive. At 12:45 they attain the status of a "relative nothing"--they become an expectation not fulfilled.

 

3. Relative something is the devoid of some nothing = possible (Einstein Special Relativity Theory...absolute time is nothing...or there is no absolute time). Because absolute time is impossible and is thus "nothing", time can only exist as a relative something.

 

As seen, they are not initially the same, one is the devoid of "some thing", the other the devoid of "some nothing". Both situations are logically possible.

[Vox]

Here is what I concluded above about relative nothing and relative something:

 

1. Relative nothing is the devoid of some thing = possible (the expectation of the other not fulfilled). My example was, suppose your friend tells you they will meet you at 12:00 for lunch. They never arrive. At 12:45 they attain the status of a "relative nothing"--they become an expectation not fulfilled.

 

3. Relative something is the devoid of some nothing = possible (Einstein Special Relativity Theory...absolute time is nothing...or there is no absolute time). Because absolute time is impossible and is thus "nothing", time can only exist as a relative something.

 

As seen, they are not initially the same, one is the devoid of "some thing", the other the devoid of "some nothing". Both situations are logically possible.

 

OK

 

Going back to "absolutes"

Stating that absolute nothing is by logic deemed to be impossible..but does this actually confirm absolute nothing..because in can not be defined via logic or anything what is something..therefore it has to be impossible via these terms ? it can not be named or known by "entities of something" by any means except deemed impossible to exist?

 

This date´s back roughly 2500 years ..similar ?

 

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 1

 

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.

The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name;

this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

[Vox]

Here is what I concluded above about relative nothing and relative something:

 

1. Relative nothing is the devoid of some thing = possible (the expectation of the other not fulfilled). My example was, suppose your friend tells you they will meet you at 12:00 for lunch. They never arrive. At 12:45 they attain the status of a "relative nothing"--they become an expectation not fulfilled.

 

3. Relative something is the devoid of some nothing = possible (Einstein Special Relativity Theory...absolute time is nothing...or there is no absolute time). Because absolute time is impossible and is thus "nothing", time can only exist as a relative something.

 

As seen, they are not initially the same, one is the devoid of "some thing", the other the devoid of "some nothing". Both situations are logically possible.

 

But as they are relative they need be existing together as "one", not "same", always both components available in different relations?