Is there nothing that doesn't exist?

[Qfwfq]

That, last I looked, was the definition of a triangle.

Good enough dictionary definition, not the best geometrical one. Anyway, looking at the hunk of plastic, what are the three points?

[nkt]

Good enough dictionary definition, not the best geometrical one. Anyway, looking at the hunk of plastic, what are the three points?

Each of the three corners?

 

I figured someone would say "But it's not *exactly* aligned in the same plane", or whatever. That doesn't matter, since any three points that are connected form a triangle, regardless of the surface it is mapped on to. Length variations don't matter either. You could also argue that the physical triangle has depth, but that matters not, either, since the three arbitary points can be chosen as on the bottom edge of the triangle.

 

It's like saying that cardboard doesn't exist - it's just really thick paper. Actually, paper doesn't exist, because it's just mashed up trees...

 

Basically, it is semantics.

 

Q, want to give us a better definition?

[infamous]

this is why I think the universe is infinite. :xx:

As I also believe niviene.Those that prefer to limit the vastness of this universe to an event in history we call the Big Bang must answer the question: What lies beyond the limit, another universe or nothingness. Wasn't it nothingness that the Big Bang entered itself into at the beginning. But truely, that was just the beginning of the Big Bang, what existed before this event. Some will contend that absolutely nothing existed before this event, I must respectfully disagree. When experiment is not possible, logic must lead the way. There is a saying, "nothing from nothing leaves nothing", likewise I'll invent a new saying. "Something from something leaves something". My logic tells me that because the universe exists today, it must be eternal. Where experiments fail, logic must prevail.

[Qfwfq]

Each of the three corners?

Which point of each corner?

 

I figured someone would say "But it's not *exactly* aligned in the same plane", or whatever.

Given any three (distinct) points, there will be one (and only one) plane to which all three belong.

 

That doesn't matter, since any three points that are connected form a triangle, regardless of the surface it is mapped on to. Length variations don't matter either. You could also argue that the physical triangle has depth, but that matters not, either, since the three arbitary points can be chosen as on the bottom edge of the triangle.

Ah, so there are infinitely many geometrical triangles that the hunk of plastic looks approximately like.

 

It's like saying that cardboard doesn't exist - it's just really thick paper. Actually, paper doesn't exist, because it's just mashed up trees...

:xx:

 

If you define paper as mashed up trees, and mashed up trees exist physically, then paper exists. If thick paper exists, then cardboard exists.

 

Q, want to give us a better definition?

A plane figure delimited by three straight lines intersecting at three distinct points; or by a closed polygonal of three segments; there are different possible equivalent ways.

[Mr. Potato Head]

Hmmm, no. Not physically. Any drawing that you make will never be an isosceles triangle, or even just a triangle. It will always be a drawing of one!

 

When I was at high school a classmate was once getting into an argument with a teacher over some matter of geometry. The teacher asked him if points exist and, when they guy answered yes, the teacher told him to bring a kilogramme of points next day. :xx:

 

To a mathematician, they exist. But a mathematician doesn't say they exist physically.

 

 

Couldn't he have simply brought 1 kilogram of anything he wanted? Who is to say how many, what size, and what weight a point is in a given body of mass? A better question would have been to bring in 300 points. That is not possible.

[Qfwfq]

Who is to say how many, what size, and what weight a point is in a given body of mass?

The geometric concept of a point is an entity having zero size and even less weight. In a finite volume there are n^(aleph_0) of them.

[tarak]

Here we do full circle when we talk about existence of God in the plane of human psyche.There can only be possibilities and situations that can be new and not the already existing matter.If there was a wheel inside the mud,it was there.Only the possibilityof its invention came up when a situation of use springed up at that particular point of time.

The only thing that exist in infinity is the time-space.Rest is all for the matter-energy to fill it in all kinds of possibilities.

[nkt]

The geometric concept of a point is an entity having zero size and even less weight. In a finite volume there are n^(aleph_0) of them.

Hmmm... So if I get a whole lot of points, and stick them in a balloon, it should float then...

 

An infinite number of lighter than nothing points should be massively ( :shrug: ) repelled by gravity! We at Hypography has solved the problem! All the points are in deep space, or perhaps at various La Grange points, or else they are flying around at large parts of the speed of light.

 

Perhaps these so-called "points" explain the increasing expansion rate of the universe?!?! :wave:

[Qfwfq]

Hmmm... So if I get a whole lot of points, and stick them in a balloon, it should float then...

If you fill the balloon with nothing but empty space (:shrug:!!!) it will certainly float.

 

It won't be repelled by gravity though. :wave:

 

:)

[Teleman21]

Though the point jabbing is funny, to get back to the original problem that started all this is the question as to the origin of ideas. I personally think the Humean way to think aobut it is the most probable, that is that ideas are unoriginal only meaning they are a compound to something we already know or something we have already experienced. If this is true then the God idea could be an idea which is a compound or something which does exist. When one thinks of the traditional characteristics of the Judeao-Christian (and Islamic) God, He (ironically titled enough) is given very paternalistic qualities. This being recognized (by Frued and others) suggested that primative man affixed these qualities onto a supernatural idea because of fear of abandonment of their parents (which explains why God is attributed with immortality/eternality). Regardless, to combat your friend, try reading David Humes Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, or a good secondary source. There is a great argument for your theory on the origin of ideas...now if you want to affix further ideas according go ahead, but do so with caution. I say this because Hume was an atheist who did not use the orgin of ideas to discuss religion. Rather, he used it to kill the hopes of inductive reasoning by humans

[blazer2000x]

Ok, my friend Steve and I got into an arguement about God's existence. I said, "You can't think of a color that doesn't exist. You can think of new colors, but you only take already existing colors and mix them up. Therefore, it's impossible that ancient people thought of God without some supernatural cause."

 

He was stumped. But then, he said:

 

"Well, the wheel didn't exist before people thought of it, therefore you can think of things that don't exist."

 

Guess who was stumped this time? :shrug:

 

So then I startead to think, maybe everything exists all the time? Do things exist before they are "invented?" I mean, maybe something doesn't have to come into physical existence to actually "exist?"

 

Do I sound really stupid, or does it make any sense? :wave:

 

Regardless of the time when something is invented, all of the principals of why it does what it does, already existed, so it could be invented at any time.

 

"That which has been is what will be,

That which is done is what will be done,

And there is nothing new under the sun.

Eccl 1:9"

The above verse I still find a bit confusing, but I feel it has something to do with this. Since, by your discussion's point, you believe in God, you can accept that God already knows everything we will make, and so it has already been thought up before we think of it. Although that won't go too swell in an argument against someone who doesn't believe in God.

If everyone were afraid of sounding stupid, very little would be accomplished.

"I made a giant piece of metal/wood fly.(airplane)"

"I caught lightining in a bottle so we can use it instead of candles.(lightbulb)"

"I made a big round thing to replace feet"(wheel)

:)

[Guest loarevalo]

Does nothing doesn't exist?

 

Let's better define "thing."

 

I would define that if we can call it "thing" then it exists - we can think of it, how could we think of something that doesn't exist?

 

So, then every'thing' exists. Can you think of some'thing' that doesn't exist. Can you think of a 'thing' that isn't a 'thing'? How would you call it. I would call that a NO-'thing', or simply 'nothing'.

 

So, if every thing exists, then nothing doesn't exist.

 

If not every thing exists, then some thing does not exist - how can we talk about some thing if that 'thing' doesn't exist?

 

If we define 'nothing' as that which does not exist. Then someone can asks us:

Is there any thing that doesn't exist?

Answer: No, nothing, nothing doesn't exist.

(We can't say Yes, because 'nothing' isn't a thing. The question asked for a 'thing')

 

Our very language gives us these clues. I just find these peculiarities of the language interesting, not that they have any weight over how things are.

[Mr. Potato Head]

Does nothing doesn't exist?

 

Let's better define "thing."

 

I would define that if we can call it "thing" then it exists - we can think of it, how could we think of something that doesn't exist?

 

So, then every'thing' exists. Can you think of some'thing' that doesn't exist. Can you think of a 'thing' that isn't a 'thing'? How would you call it. I would call that a NO-'thing', or simply 'nothing'.

 

So, if every thing exists, then nothing doesn't exist.

 

If not every thing exists, then some thing does not exist - how can we talk about some thing if that 'thing' doesn't exist?

 

If we define 'nothing' as that which does not exist. Then someone can asks us:

Is there any thing that doesn't exist?

Answer: No, nothing, nothing doesn't exist.

(We can't say Yes, because 'nothing' isn't a thing. The question asked for a 'thing')

 

Our very language gives us these clues. I just find these peculiarities of the language interesting, not that they have any weight over how things are.

 

Language is flawed and does not take into account potential.

[BEAKER]

maybe everything exists all the time? Do things exist before they are "invented?" I mean, maybe something doesn't have to come into physical existence to actually "exist?" :lol:

What a great question!

The answer is found in the mind of God.

 

But of course discussion around here is usually limited to the tangible and quantifiable.:)

[motherengine]

There is really only one thing that does'nt exist and that one thing is NOTHING .

 

i have friend who swears that nothing does exist though i have my doubts. nothing exists in relationship to something as a concept but does something require nothing to exist as something beyond the conceptual realm. space could be construed as absence which is nothing but then something conceptually. but for a thing to exist it must it be capable of being measured? god as a thought is but a thought held in the existing brain. does a thought exist? not enough words for the midnight philosophers.

[vanamoinen1]

Odd question--good one, but odd.

 

And running in the background is the hideous St. Anselm formulation "that than which no greater can be conceived". I always wondered about that "greater" term--it seems to me that one's viewpoint/prejudices/assumptions define which of two objects is the greater. To my own perverse mind, the object which is impossible (look at an Escher drawing) WERE IT TO EXIST would be greater than that which is possible and does (or does not) exist. But this is an example of my prejudice--that the object is impossible and yet exists (if only as an idea) seems TO ME to be a "greater" achievement than for the possible to merely exist. Eh. And then the assumptions/prejudices over "exist" pop up.

 

it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. :P

 

as to a more personal/pragmatic view, if I were to accept the proposition that G-d exists, if it is so very simple that I can understand it and extrapolate its will, then clearly, it isn't worthy of my devotion. And as to a more external/pragmatic view--w/re: to people who do believe in the existence of G-d, their belief, whether right or wrong, yields for them a greater sense of richness over the duration of their lives than they would have had in the absence of that belief. So what the hey, let them believe as they believe and QED.

[Boerseun]

Nothing can exist bigger than the size where it will gravitationally collapse upon itself.