I believe that 'Nothing' has to be 'something' in order to be a 'nothing' so therefore there is no such thing as 'nothing just something we cannot as yet perceive to be a 'something'... agree disagree?
Is it the doors of perception in our minds as Aldous Huxley wrote of, that, indeed, we need or should try and grasp onto a little more?
Sign in or create a free account to add tags to your personal tag cloud using
Handling statistical data is an essential part of psychological research. However, many...
This introduction to applied psychology explores how psychological theories and methods...
Psychology is not a simple subject. This unit examines how different aspects of human...
Dyslexia is a condition affecting literacy skills. This unit analyses how our image of...
This unit explores the role of diagnosis in the treatment of mental health problems. It...
In this unit you will learn about the importance of ethics in research that is undertaken...
Most of us have a very vague and narrow concept of what autism is, based mainly on such...
This unit uses an interactive resource (EPoCH) to gain a better sense of how the...
The most ‘important and greatest puzzle’ we face as humans is ourselves (Boring, 1950,...
A visit to one of London's world-famous markets, and the end of Michael Morpurgo's...
Why are dogs our best friends? And can the Hairy Bikers take an American pizza to the...
Help us to build a picture of the secret history of streets around the UK by contributing...
How did childhood get shaped through the centuries to become the concept of today - and...
![Polling Station signage [Image: kagey b under CC-BY-NC-ND licence]](/openlearn/files/ole/ole_images/places/general-urban-scenes/polling-station-sign/polling station sign_0_0.jpg)
As people take to the polls in the UK today to vote in local and mayoral elections, we...
The first sparks of the electrical revolution, and the final gunning of the Hairy Bikers'...
If you enjoyed this, why not follow a feed to find out when we have new things like it? Choose an RSS feed from the list below. (Don't know what to do with RSS feeds?)
Remember, you can also make your own, personal feed by combining tags from around OpenLearn.
Thinkstock
Dip into insights from OU academics. Watch, listen, debate, play and discover more about your passions. Read more : Explore
The Open University
Take the next step with our LearningSpace - packed with thousands of hours of free OU course materials. Read more : Try
Thinkstock
Turn your passion into a career changing qualification - study in depth with the UK's most flexible university. Read more : Study
Discover the latest about your passions - Sign In or Register and start a personal tag cloud.
Except for third party materials and otherwise stated, content on this site is made available
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence
Login or Register to post comments
nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
OK i beleive that 'Nothing' has to be 'something' in order to be a 'nothing' so therefore there is no such thing as 'nothing just something we cannot as yet perceive to be a 'something'... agree disagree thoughts and opinions i can take it im mad i know that already so dont hold back...purlese thankyou...is it the doors of perception in our minds as Aldous Huxley wrote of that indeed we need or should try and grasp onto a little more?...
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
I suggest that before continuing you all go away and read up on superstrings.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
"Nothing" can exist as a concept, but not as a reality. Five oranges less five oranges does not leave "something" oranges. In the context of the oranges, there is "nothing" left. In order for there to be no oranges, all of them (the somethings) had to be removed.
I suppose what I'm saying is there must be something for there to be nothing, but the something can't be nothing. "Nothing" doesn't exist without context. Well, at least as I understand it.
Is it possible to derive a definition of "nothing" that does not refer to the existance of "something" else?
This is starting to sound like a Spike Milligan peom!
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
whadda we gonna do nah then? ...whadda we gonna do nah then? ...whadda we gonna do nah then?
Parmenides:To speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing that exists.
Torricelli shows a vacuum.
Sartre: conciousness cannot be an object of conciousness and can possess no essence so is nothing
Nirvana
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
torricelli was in error
there is gravity in the vacuum
gravity is not nothing
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
I suggest reading the metaphysical poem by Parmenides, `On Nature`...he discussed this very thing around the 5th century AD.
Also in the `Alice` books by Lewis Carroll
The king says, "They're gone to the town. Just look along the road and tell me if you can see either of them."
"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.
"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"
One of the hardest things, is having an original thought.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
no, trying to have an original thought is hard, having one is easy if a bit rare
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
I am rather coming around to the view that something has to be nothing in order to be something, for if it is not nothing then it must be something else.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
This does not make sense and has nothing to do with "nothing has to be a something to be a nothing"
Your two propositions are not related. The second being a waste of space.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
For the second time, I suggest that before continuing you go away and read up on superstrings. Then you won't be conducting your debate in the 17th century!
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
The basis of Sartre's existentialism is found in The Transcendence of the Ego. To begin with, the thing-in-itself is infinite and overflowing. Sartre refers to any direct consciousness of the thing-in-itself as a "pre-reflective consciousness." Any attempt to describe, understand, historicize etc. the thing-in-itself, Sartre calls "reflective consciousness." There is no way for the reflective consciousness to subsume the pre-reflective, and so reflection is fated to a form of anxiety, i.e. the human condition. The reflective consciousness in all its forms, (scientific, artistic or otherwise) can only limit the thing-in-itself by virtue of its attempt to understand or describe it. It follows, therefore, that any attempt at self-knowledge (self-consciousness - a reflective consciousness of an overflowing infinite) is a construct that fails no matter how often it is attempted. Consciousness is consciousness of itself insofar as it is consciousness of a transcendent object.
The same holds true about knowledge of the "Other." The "Other" (meaning simply beings or objects that are not the self) is a construct of reflective consciousness. One must be careful to understand this more as a form of warning than as an ontological statement. However, there is an implication of solipsism here that Sartre considers fundamental to any coherent description of the human condition. Sartre overcomes this solipsism by a kind of ritual. Self consciousness needs "the Other" to prove (display) its own existence. It has a "masochistic desire" to be limited, i.e. limited by the reflective consciousness of another subject. This is expressed metaphorically in the famous line of dialogue from No Exit, "Hell is other people."
The main idea of Jean-Paul Sartre is that we are, as men, "condemned to be free."This theory relies upon his atheism, and is formed using the example of the paper-knife. Sartre says that if one considered a paper-knife, one would assume that the creator would have had a plan for it: an essence. Sartre said that human beings have no essence before their existence because, there is no Creator. Thus: "existence precedes essence".[22] So, and just for that, the sartrian man with his freedom will became a god, but he remain always only a bankrupt god...nirvana...possibly...:-)
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
Oops, how can that be? ...on the following page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
still in many ways you made it your own with a cheeky little :-)
[Moderator: personal remarks that do not add to the debate have been removed]
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
i am not tryinig to make it my own wikipedia is a wealth of informational facts interesting input my mistake for putting a smile instead of a question mark as to were this theory might lead...
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
Perceptions, and the definitions that we base on those perceptions, tend to complicate the issue ... One person's "nothing" is another person's "something" after all.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
i should of been less vague on this i apologise...i mean in the sense of science matter and anti matter...anti matter being the most powerful energy source releasing energy with 100% efficiency (nuclear fission is 1.5 per cent efficient) it creates no radiation no pollution and a droplet could power a giant city for a full day..although highly unstable igniting when absoloutly everything...even air...everything being a something? nothing being...? When we harness the power of anti-matter... who thinks it will be used to save the world and who thinks it will be used to create the most deadliest weapon ever made?...
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
Who told you this? Did you make it up? Did someone else make it up? Do you actually believe it? Where can I get some?
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
me.
(plus eight more characters to bring it up to the minimum of ten before being accepted for posting)
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
relieved?...
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
you or me or them or us or wee?
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
a for you?
b the governing power with the capability to use it for either means assuming that would be one 'government'.?
c we the world as a whole could never have the power to decide as it it would be decided by public vote/poll which would be politically/governmentally controlled as with elections power is a great manipulator of the human nature as might be the power to 'fix' the votes to the opinion of said person/people in charge?
me? i pessemistically? believe in this day and age of politics religion power and greed that it would be used to destroy the world perhaps for the subconcious/conscious belief in the thought that it was being done for the 'right' reasons i think that when we harness that power that it is harnessed by the correct people and used to our advantage as a population...
it fascinates me though like Mr Cochran said earlier if you have 5 oranges and take them away you start with 5 oranges then are left with nothing, but in that nothing there is definatley something, something we cannot see or touch feel or hear but that doesnt mean its not there just has to be proven?
like touch are we touching to feel or feeling to touch?
are we hearing to listen or listening to hear?
are we speaking to talk or talking to speak?
do we smell scents because we choose to or because we have to, why do we dream?, what if we are actually dreaming when we are awake and awake when dreaming but dont, cant or wont realise it? we fear dying what if we are already dead and what most of us spend most of our lives fearing we are living persay why?
and no before you ask i am not on drugs..however i do believe that perhaps the use of peyote and grass both natural substances could be harnessed to maybe give us some insight into these questions? someone stable minded of course lol
id like to hear your thoughts on this?
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
put me down... ...for the peyote and grass, naturally.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
I shan’t trespass much on the philosophical ground that Samantha has already sectioned out, mainly muse on the problem of defining ‘nothing’ in a physical sense. Andrew Cochran is right. We can easily understand ‘something’, because all we need is one concrete ‘thing’ to focus on, but ‘nothing’ is defined only by what it is not, and the number of things it can ‘not be’ is almost unlimited (this is a property it shares with concepts like ‘eternity’ or ‘omnipotence’). If five oranges are given then taken away, no oranges remain but any number of other things remain, including the memory of the oranges, and the possibility of the oranges. In fundamental physics, it seems the zero energy vacuum is the nearest to nothing that can be achieved, but it is not nothing. Probably it could not be nothing, if anything is to be possible. So Samantha’s original thesis is proven in physical terms. Moving to the slippery topic of consciousness, I believe this is as much an evolved organ as any other in the human, as is the perception of ‘self’ and ‘other’. So this is not something which exists either in some universal philosophical ‘ether’, or purely in the confused minds of individuals as they bounce off each other like billiard balls. I think there is a weak parallel between these two themes, as you cannot have ‘self’ without ‘other’ any more than ‘something’ without the ‘nothing’ substrate in which it exists. Finally, listening/hearing, touching/feeling, and looking/seeing are far more than they appear, because they are full of immediate meaning. To the extent that we can focus attention we can separate perception from sensing, but for the most part these happen together and automatically. Finally, when you talk about ‘being dead and dreaming we are alive’ it’s rather like asking ‘what if red were blue and blue were red’. It’s fun but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny – unless you really are wired up in a laboratory tank being fed with a simulation.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
To the extent that we can focus attention we can separate perception from sensing, but for the most part these happen together and automatically. Finally, when you talk about ‘being dead and dreaming we are alive’ it’s rather like asking ‘what if red were blue and blue were red’. It’s fun but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny – unless you really are wired up in a laboratory tank being fed with a simulation.
exactly!...unless.......in your words.. you really are wired up in a laboratory tank being fed with a simulation.
and monitored.
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
sounds like the difference between talking your way out of something and being cold busted
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
Might be just me but I have no trouble at all in perceiving nothing. Sam
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
Its a blessing
Re: nothing has to be a something to be a nothing
yes, absolutely, maybe try and grasp a little more into the doors of perception in your mind?
nothing and something
Nothing is Nothing, Nothing is Everything: Absolutes. Nothing and Everything occupy absolute space which does not give room for perception so that the thing appears emersed, one with, and a member of a whole, like if the whole sky is filled with one complete shade of colour, it appears as nothing or everything.
Something, on the other hand, is part of Everything. You perceive a something amidst everything because you have a differentiation in the scape, arena, area, from which to perceive one from the other.
So, yes, nothing has to be something on two related grounds
1. That we have never perceived nothing, so nothing is a word that is not an ecological representative. So in so far as we name it, it is bound to be something
2. So therefore when ''Nothing'', as we know it, is ''Everything'' then the said 'Nothing' has to be something, within our ecological perspective.