Hallo the_seeker,

the_seeker:

this leads us to the ultimate question. Can enery be considered as nothing? Take for example a black hole where matter is compressed to a singularity. Such that what is left is a 'gravitational shadow' of the original matter. Can we then call a black hole 'nothing'?

Well, it all depends on what exactly what anyone means by 'nothing' - what does it mean to the speaker/observer (in this case, you) personally?

Even then, let's be careful here what we tend to describe. There's a difference here between processes and entities. If you take either or both energy and black hole to be processes, you're not describing 'nothing' but actually talking about a process in existence that brings about other phenomena. However, if you take either or both terms (energy and black hole) to be entities, there again you're not pointing to 'nothing' but to certain things within existence, no?

Viaro - does this not prove what i have been screaming since:

That - there is nothing like "nothingness" anywhere in existence. It does NOT exist.

Is the word "nothingness" not even a direct contradiction of the word "existence?"

Deep Sight:

Viaro - does this not prove what i have been screaming since:

That - there is nothing like "nothingness" anywhere in existence. It does NOT exist.

I'm sorry, but it does not 'prove' what you had reiterated about 'nothingness'. The thread itself is about creation or existence ex nihilo - something emerging from 'nothing': not that anything came out of nothing completely on its own, but rather that creation itself came into 'existence' ex nihilo, or the argument to the contrary completely removes 'creation' from the picture and therefore maintains what it yet cannot even begin to argue.

Is the word "nothingness" not even a direct contradiction of the word "existence?"

Dear sir, it depends entirely on the context of the one who uses that term, 'nothingness'. I cannot just slap on an agreement with your unqualified statement there, especially because you have argued a catachresis that is still unclear on this issue in the 'oneness of infinity' thread.

Be that as it may, 'nothingness' (depending context)  may not actually be a direct contradiction of 'existence'. In some uses of the former term ('nothingness'), it tends to mean 'empty, unfilled space', and no one in their right minds would begin to argue that 'space' does not exist (even if that space is empty). This is akin to Leucippus' philosophy where "nothing" has a reality attached to it, such that there could be no motion without a 'void' (for the 'void' [defined as 'not being'] is necessary for motion to occur).

On the other hand, some may argue more directly for the other use of that same term ('nothingness') as meaning 'the complete lack of existence' - which I suppose may have been your own intended usage? So, tied in either with the topic of this thread or that of the 'Oneness of Infinity' thread, if 'nothingness' be taken to mean the complete lack of existence, it should not even feature in your premises at all, or you would still have insurmountable problems to deal with. In this regard, you might want to see one of the direct and simple cases for the nebulous 'nothing/nothingness' concept in Wikipedia:

[list]

However, "nothingness" has been treated as a serious subject worthy of research for a very long time. In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of "nothing", a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed.

[/list]

Yes, DeepSight, it is in the context of 'not-being' that is most problematic for researchers in cosmology and 'origins science'. I cannot overemphasize this point about context, for you cannot maintain that 'nothingness' does not exist in the face of other disciplines and concerns:

In mathematics, "nothing" does not have a technical meaning. The number zero is often used interchangeably with the term. It could also be said that a set contains "nothing" if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. In other words, the word "nothing" can be an informal term for an empty set.

In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense either. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.

Does this mean that 'nothing/nothingness' does not exist? No, absolutely not. It simply means that the term delivers various meanings for various researchers, so that when they speak about 'nothing', that sphere may lack specific properties while having other properties and yet within context still be understood as 'nothing'.

But in this thread, don't get it all confused with 'existence', because you're arguing vacantly on another ground entirely in the assertion that 'nothingness does not exist'. My first question to you on that would be: in what context or what grounds do you make that assertion?

Yes, because it takes something to create a nothing which makes it a something depending on how open your mind is.

there's no such thing as nothing.

something is there but just in a different form.