Many have seen, felt, heard, experienced, and imagined nothing. Something isn't always extant. What beings are insensate and insentient? The dead and the perished, and to some degree, the comatosed. Those are they who qualify by their disqualifications.
But with regards to 'nothing':
Nothing exists by not existing. The only way to define nothing is through a paradox. Nothing is an abyss, and absence, a void. It is by this absence and that presence can be defined. Something requires 'nothing' and vice versa; therefore there is always 'something.' There is always 'nothing.'
The existence of both and each are not exclusive. That's the key to understanding the two.
2007-03-07 01:54:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by gaelicai 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
"Nothing" or the state of nothingness, entirely depends on the context. Pockets of deep space are known to have nearly no matter or energy, being very nearly nothing. The outer boundries of the universe (there is signifcant evidence to suggest a closed, bounded universe) may also have absolutely nothing beyond its boundries.
This is somewhat similar to why man will never create true absolute zero. We can come within thousandths of a degree of making something have absolutely no heat whatsoever. But because that molecule with no heat is always going to be close enough to another molecule that is a little warmer, it will always absorb a fraction of its heat. All we can do is try to limit the fraction. So for practical purposes, we can do it, sure. But since we cannot totally rid trace elements from the experiment, we will probably never acheive true absolute zero. Or true nothingness.
The issue is largely semantic. Once we experience something - anything - we tend to apply a name to it. So suppose, a million years from now, man experiences absolute nothingness. He can just conjure a word to stand for that experience. Now "nothingness" has a name instead of nothingness - making it something.
Radical Skeptics, who believe that everything in life may be just an illusion, say that if you've never experienced it, you cannot accurately refer to it. Like in the flim, The Matrix, when one of the characters discusses "Tasty Wheat". What Keanu, and the other characters have experienced isn't Tasty Wheat, it's the machine's interpretation of Tasty Wheat. And presuppositions about real Tasty Wheat Keanu has are invalid.
That is why until mankind experiences true, utter, nothingness, we can't really make any valid claim or references to it. And once we do experience it, we will assign a name to it, which makes something out of nothing. :)
2007-03-07 10:00:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Yooka 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well I experienced a comatose state for 3 weeks and it was nothing -not even memories of it so I guess this statement could be argued. and I didn't imagine it LOL---but the something came after I woke up --a lot of agony and pain.
2007-03-07 09:50:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by luminous 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. No one ever sown nothing or did nothing or thought nothing. There is always something and we know it. We just don't know how to describe this or we are afraid to admit it.
2007-03-07 09:59:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Natalia B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think there has to be something even if it may seem like nothing, theres always something there
2007-03-07 09:49:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by imme93 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have nothing to add to the previous answerers ... oops, does that mean something?
2007-03-07 10:02:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Always Hopeful 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
nothing does exist, and nothing does not exist
everything exists, and everything does not exist
remember that it all depends on the observer...
2007-03-07 09:48:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Nothing "starts" from something...
2007-03-07 09:49:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by emi79 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
One thing that does not exist is my interest in answering this question.
2007-03-07 13:35:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Heart still beating, blood still flowing, brain still synapsing.
2007-03-07 09:48:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by countrychic 3
·
0⤊
1⤋