Nothing

You can only communicate using things that already exist in the brain of the receiver, aka things that the receiver already knows. The receiver got those things from the universe in the first place.

No matter how rigorous and perfect you think the set of words that constitute your proof is, you can never teach a dog what is a prime number using only words.

"Why bother?"
When a human being is under immense suffering. That is where the "Why" is born.

>Nothing means nonexistence of something.
Tick
>Nonexistence does not exist by definition.
The definition i will accept of nonexistence is the absence of matter. However just because the absence of matter is its definition, does not mean the term itself does not exist. The term is quite clearly made of matter, it simply REFERS to the state of absence of matter. An example of an absence of matter would be a hard vacuume.
>Therefore there can not be nothing, there must be something.
Unproven hypothesis, does not follow from previous statment.

>you can never teach a dog what is a prime number using only words.
What do you need to use then?

Why?

If that was true then no one would ever learn anything. And we know that people do learn and that brains do form new connections which is a direct response to external stimuli.

Im afraid you are not the know it all creature you profess yourself to be. You have simply argued yourself into a cul-de-sac.

Im going to make elitist excuses for why i won't explain my patently false reasoning to you-the post

> i will accept of nonexistence is the absence of matter.
Why not nonexistence of time and space?

Can nothing exist?

>Why not nonexistence of time and space?
>Can nothing exist?

Time is entropy which is matter.
Space is another matter entirely.

It may infact be the case that beyond the boarders of the universe there is nothing.
Or not.

= Unproven hypothesis.

>Time is entropy which is matter.
>Space is another matter entirely.
>An example of an absence of matter would be a hard vacuume.

Then decide already.

>It may infact be the case that beyond...
You're going off topic.

The question "why there is something rather than nothing" presumes that nothing can exist. Can it?

>Can it?

>= Unproven hypothesis.

We dont know either way. You would have seen that i said that if you had read what you arbitrarily assumed is off topic. If the topic only contained the terms that you suggested, it would be a circular argument fallacy either way.

Now ive given you your answer. Accept it.

PS: im going to bed now.

Yeah, linguistically speaking, the binary opposition of "something" and "nothing" do not produce an objective definition of either, but rather a dialectical relationship between the two that creates a spectrum of existence.

But there is the Quantum Electrodynamic concept of the Vacuum Space in which there is no instance of any particle of any type whatsoever, whereas normally you would have the random propagation of various quarks as the consequence of probability. This is conceptually describable, but surely unfathomable to human experience.

Also, there most definitely is everything. Once you remove the limit of time from any probability, then the chances of it occurring are 100%. Thus, everything exists at some point if anything exists at all. And if you think you exist, there is no conceivable way to disprove you. It gets Cartesian pretty quickly, but the iterations are infinite.

The whole point of the argument is that there is no other possibility but to argue yourself in to a cul-de-sac using words. Your own 'logical' conclusion is the most unenlightening I've ever heard.

To address your other point (despite the fact that you are an annoying shit who only cares to preach), it is possibly to learn about subsystems when considering a smallish number of variables, and only in terms of things already known. Else it is not possible to understand or describe, only to label inadequately, guess, or be wrong.

responding to a strawman is hardly constructive

>the Vacuum Space in which there is no instance of any particle of any type whatsoever

Raw space is already something. And actually easier to imagine than space with quantum fluctuations.

>everything exists at some point
I can imagine a lot of things that are contradictory to themselves. I can imagine things that defy logic. Do they also exist somewhere? Is there a "garbage universe" for all the retarded ideas, like an omnipotent deity? A place where logic is suspended?

Where do we put the borders of "everything exists"?

>Nonexistence does not exist by definition.

You are wrong.
Non existence is an idea and such idea does exist else you would not have been able to refer to it by a word.

>Therefore there can not be nothing, there must be something.

Wrong again.
Just because nothing is an absence of something it does not mean that something has to be present.

>Also why bother asking "why there is something rather than nothing"?

I agree to a degree.
"Why" is a very ambiguous word, it is not certain whether it is asking for the cause or the goal which are two different things.

>is there everything rather than something"?

Everything is all that there is, it exists by its very definition.

>an annoying shit who only cares to preach

Not the guys you are responding to, but you're describing yourself. And your shit's all retarded. "Labeling inadequately" is the only way we have trying to understand the world. Plato's cave. Get out of my thread.

>idea does exist
It exists only as an idea. A perfect circle exists only as an idea. You may argue, that this is a form of existence. Allright, but the existence of an idea does not automatically make that idea possible in reality. It's a different level of existence.

>absence of something
Absence does not exist in reality. It's just an idea. Nothing is just an idea, zero is just an idea.
Nothing can not exist.

>Everything is all that there is
So there is god? And a god of that god? And a multiverse? And an invisible pink unicorn?

>does not automatically make that idea possible in reality.

It does.
What you are probably trying to express, but are failing to do, is that the idea does not necessarily have a phenomenon that it is referring to, that is outside the mind.

>Absence does not exist in reality.
The state of absence does.

>So there is god?
>And a god of that god?
>And a multiverse?
>And an invisible pink unicorn?

What caused you to ask a bunch of these seemingly unrelated questions to the statement "Everything is all that there is"?

This is essentially Parmenides' problem. I guess the best answer I can come up with is that language doesn't refer to the world, but to our conceptual schema. In these, nothingness is something, viz. a concept.

What is this "conceptual schema" that you speak of?

>that the idea does not necessarily have a phenomenon that it is referring to, that is outside the mind

So it's not real, just imaginary. You are playing with words and arguing for the sake of arguing. And it's even worse than mine.

>The state of absence does [exist in reality].
How does absence look like?
It's just an abstract concept.

>seemingly unrelated questions
>seemingly
I showed you examples of things I can imagine, but I can't imagine them to be real (invisible pink) or just highly improbable (others). So I was asking you - do they exist, since you said everything does? And im asking about reality, not imagination land.

>Parmenides' problem
That would be the entry point.
I'm arguing nothingness is one of those concepts that "does not have a phenomenon that it is referring to". Nonexistence can not exist. Just because we can imagine it, does not make it real.
"Something rather than nothing" - there is no option here. There must be something. One bit of information, a line of one dimension, or this fractal of a world with all it's subtlety. Or even all that is possible. Any of those, but not nothing.

The gradient of possible universes would start at almost nothing and end at all possible states. From there we could argue, that all possible states are infinite. Also we could ask if there are states that are not possible.

Knowledge can be derived in the absence of empirical observation.

Thought experiments, for instance. Mathematics as well.

But if you never have any initial stimuli it can be argued that no thought will actually take place.

i think you'd be able to make your points more concrete and useful if you formulated them using predicate logic

as currently stated:
>pennjillette.jpg

We dont know there is something. At least we dont know that it is a thing in the common sense of the word. All we know is that there are patterns. Order rather than chaos. But i dont know why we presume order is unusual. Why must there be chaos. This is what we must show.

>patterns, Order, chaos
That's all something.
I didn't ask why there is order rather than chaos. You may want to make another thread for that.

>i think you'd be able to make
You would be, not me. Fuck syntax/to lazy/just a Veeky Forums thread.

>Using words to prove something is WRONG
Prove it

Ok, I've read more into Parmenides. You were right - almost the same thing.

Let "nothing" be x.

If x exists, then something exists.
If there is something, how could x exist?
If x doesn't exist, then fuck you.
This is all semantic bullshit.

Let's make this short:
Not-being can not be.

>So I was asking you - do they exist, since you said everything does?

I explicitly said:
>Everything is all that there is

Meaning: Everything = All that (there is)/exists.
Whats so hard to grasp about that sentence to you?

>How does absence look like?
You have never noticed something absent or missing in your entire life?

>You are playing with words and arguing for the sake of arguing
Fantastic projection you got there.

Wrong

There are plenty of things that don't "be". We call these things nonexistent. There are plenty of things that don't exist, like informed, intelligent discourse on Veeky Forums.

Right now, in the room that you're sitting in, there are particles that exist. These particles are made of smaller particles. And perhaps those particles are made of smaller particles (but we don't know that those exist).

At any rate, assuming there is a smallest particle, there's always a region of space smaller than that particle. Space can be infinitely subdivided, unlike actual objects. There is a region of space small enough that nothing can fit inside it, not even the smallest particle.

So this incredibly small room is either empty, or completely filled with an elementary particle. In the former case, the room contains nothing. In the latter case, the room contains nothing else.

If I asked you to describe the state of all objects contained in the former, empty room as either "being" or "not-being" in the room, you should conclude that the objects in the empty room do not "be". As a consequence, there aren't any objects in the room.

Problem 2: Determine the state of all of the other objects in the filled room
Answer: they also don't "be"
The proof is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.

They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

>Whats so hard to grasp about that sentence to you?
Your definition of everything is insufficient. Are there items that we can imagine and can only exist in imagination but not reality? If so, your set "Everything" is pretty limited for being everything.

>noticed something absent
That would be a change of state or your logical conclusion. That is not being by itself.

We can't even imagine that nothing does not exist. People say they believe nothing produced everything due to qualities in the nothing like the law of gravity, or QM fluctuations.

So even when people pretend to try to believe in nothing, they fail.

There has never been, and never will be, nothing.

>empiricist detected

>Space can be infinitely subdivided
What is Planck lenght?

>room contains nothing
There is still room? That's something.
But even if you would imagine empty room minus the room, that would be only imaginary. I'm saying - you can't have reality with nothing in it. Nothing is just a concept, it's imaginary, it does not exist. Therefore at least something must exist.

>Therefore at least something must exist.

Support this "conclusion" with an actual argument and not a non sequitur.

How can there be nothing if nothing can not be?

No.
Support the assertion that at least something "must" exist.

>ITT: we jack each other off like little dirty piggies

Crap!!

Untestable.

You could kill yourself and then explain to me again about how nothing doesn't exist.

You could go beyond the visible universe and then come back to tell me there is nothing there, or that it is infinite and absolutely everything exists somewhere. Including idiotic mouth flapping mammals like us, apparently.

Please get back to me once you do these things.

Words can be used to prove ANYTHING. Logic and math can be useful tools, but by themselves they cannot tell you anything about reality. I can define OP as "not a faggot", but in reality you are and always will be a faggot.

If something didn't exist, that would mean nothing exists. But it can't.

I would not do any explaining if I wouldn't exist myself.
If I could go beyond the visible universe there would probably be more of the said universe. If I could go entirely outside of it, that would mean there is something there too. If there "was nothing" there, I wouldn't be able to go into what doesn't exist.

This post sums up perfectly why philospohy is a waste of intellectual power. Mental masturbation, if you will.

>Nonexistence does not exist by definition
false, nonexistence is a property of any entity that does not exist, if there was no nonexistence then any conceivable idea and object would exist and everything would be all fucked up

Thanks, Plato.