Like, if you take out all the empty spaces within the blood vessels in the human body blood will stop flowing and man will die. If you take out the empty spaces from the universe the universe will condense back to the pre big bang stage where life as we know it cannot exist.
The universe is made up of matter. And matter is something that has weight and occupies space. So without an empty space (without nothing) matter has nothing to occupy and therefore ceases to exist.
2007-08-18 05:22:11 · 9 answers · asked by SEALTIEL 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No. I have not read of any book, nor of any philosopher/writer explaining the nothing.
As I chew on your thoughts, albeit scientifically, since all of us now have this advantage over the philosophers of yonder days and times. Plato and Aristotle explained everything through subjective minds because they all did not have the luxury of science. You can even plot their awakening through the thoughts of the likes of Pascal, and their contribution to philosophy.
2007-08-18 05:56:11 · answer #1 · answered by QuiteNewHere 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Space doesn't mean nothing. Then space is always an area which exists between and around things.
Please send me an email giving reasons just to let me understand your point of view if I'm wrong.
2007-08-18 06:20:07 · answer #2 · answered by Mustansar Dar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ancient atomists used to write and/or speak in much that manner. Leucippus and Democritus. Everything consists of "atoms and the void." Both are essential for the world we know. By the "void," they of course meant something much like what you mean by nothing.
2007-08-18 08:19:37 · answer #3 · answered by Christopher F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sartre says that Nothingness is a state of non-being. Nothingness does not itself have Being, but is sustained by Being. Sartre disagrees with Hegel that Being and Nothingness are opposite, or are opposed as thesis and antithesis respectively. Sartre says that Nothingness is the contradiction, and not the opposite, of Being. Nothingness is logically subsequent to Being.
Perhaps you could use that in relation to your theory of matter and space (being and not being), and decide if space (nothing) is subsequent to matter (being). And that space is not opposite of matter, but is contradiction to matter.
2007-08-18 06:55:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Martin Heidegger - but not in the materialist sense you describe.
2007-08-18 06:21:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Consider this:
Nothing was here until you got here. And, for you, nothing will be here when you're gone.
In which case, it will be as if nothing was ever here.
2007-08-18 06:45:05 · answer #6 · answered by PastorBobby 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are right , nothing is the ultimate and everybody has to go in nothing.
2007-08-25 07:08:00 · answer #7 · answered by nomoreiaminthisworld 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothingness consumes nothing, the 'black hole' theory
2007-08-25 03:14:18 · answer #8 · answered by hecate669isis 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sh*t, I wish it worked that way for my cluttered, messy house.
2007-08-18 06:19:08 · answer #9 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋