[Can a person imagine or conceive of ]"Nothing"[?]

Great Debates
41

The way this is put gives rise to confusion because imagining and conceiving are not really the same thing. (It is true that, sometimes “imagine” is used to mean pretty much the same thing as “conceive,” but, more typically, it has rather richer connotations.) It seems fairly clear to me that we can conceive of nothing in the sense that we can form a concept of it - people are discussing it in this thread, after all, and as begbert2 has pointed out, we can formalize it with notions such as the empty set (or, come to that, zero), and it even turns out to be of practical use in endeavors such as mathematics and computer programming. (Sometimes it is possible to talk about things, such as circular squares, that we cannot really conceive, because the concept is self-contradictory. However, the successful formalization shows that this is not the case with nothing.)

It is much less clear, however, whether we can imagine nothing, in the sense of having some sort of quasi-sensual, vicarious experience of it, as for instance, I can imagine a unicorn, or what it would feel like to win the lottery. I very much doubt whether it is possible to imagine nothing in this sense. The imagination, it seems to me, needs some at least potentially experiencable qualities to latch on to, and nothing, by definition, does not have any (not even spatial extension).
*
Infinity* is another example of something of which we can conceive (and find it useful to conceive) but cannot truly imagine. No doubt there are other examples, but my brain is too tired to think of them at the moment.

In any case, some of the people in this thread seem to be talking past one another because some are talking primarily about conceiving and some are talking about imagining in its richer (and more usual) sense.

42

I consider myself thinking of nothing when I’m too preoccupied with what’s going on outside my mind to think of anything.

If the ‘nothing’ you’re thinking of is empty space, I presume you’re thinking of blackness. Black is a colour, and it is something.

43

I think about the absence of blackness.

44

I think of a patch of blackness and then reduce its size to zero.

To imagine nothing, in its fullest and richest sense, one needs merely to imagine something to bound it as well. If you imagine a cat in a box you are imagining a cat, so if you imagine nothing in a box you are imagining nothing.

Of course, there is some debate over whether “empty space” counts as “something” due to “space” being a thing. If one wants to bypass that debate, one merely imagines a container with no empty space inside it. So, if you imagine the pictoral representation of the empty set “{}”, you are literally imagining nothing. It just happens to be a nothing with curly braces on either side of it.

45

No, you are imagining a box (and the space inside it).

Nonsense. You are imagining a symbol that represents nothing, not nothing itself. This is like saying that imagining the word “cat” is the same as imagining a cat.

46

How did you manage to type this after reading my post? I pointed out as clearly as is humanly possible that if you imagine A and B, that you are imagining A. And B. Not that this should require pointing out.

And it’s very arguable that that “space” in the box is actually nothing. Remember my post above about the two models that reality might be implemented in? Yeah.

Again, did you read? “{}” isnt’ the nothing I was talking about. The stuff between the “{” and the “}” is the nothing I was talking about. What’s that you say? That there’s nothing between the “{” and the “}”? Exactly.

47

Did you read (or if you did, did you understand) my earlier post? It does not seem like it.

Nothing + something != nothing.

It would be true that if you were imaging a box with rocks in it you would, thereby, be imaging rocks. But nothing is not like rocks, it is not stuff, or a thing, and it cannot be assumed that the same logic applies to it as does to stuff and things. Imagining a box with nothing in it is the same as imagining a box without anything in it. Imagining a box without anything in it is not imagining nothing, it is imagining a box. Take away the box and you are not imagining anything at all. That is not imagining nothing, it is just not imagining.

From one perspective (not the one you intend, I am sure) there is a little area of white screen between the { and the } in {}. It represents nothing, but is not itself nothing. From the alternative perspective, when you see and understand {} you are conceiving of nothing (which I fully concede that you can do) but you are not imagining it. If you do not get the distinction, then, once again, you need to re-read my first post in this thread.

48

Meh.

Nothing + something = nothing + something. Of course, it helps if you can tell the nothing and something apart. Hence it’s best to use a bounding container of some kind. Conveneintly, the bounding container can itself be the ‘something’, allowing you to define the contents (which number 0) as ‘nothing’. And then imagine the totality of it - the nothing included.

That ‘not imagining’ stuff is just garbage. I can imagine the box, and then imagine zooming in to look at only the area inside it. Whoops, have I stopped imagining? Nope. The old imagination-ticker is still turning over just fine. I can even smoothly zoom in and out, back and forth, without my brain even once having an access violation or general protection fault.

I read it. I understand it. You’re simply wrong.

I can imagine nothing just fine. Admittedly it’s not full of exciting distinguishing features, but really, what do you expect?

For bonus points, I can imagine “infinity” too. Here’s two ways to do it: consider a line. Here, I’ll provide one: - Now, how many different points are there between the ends of the line?

(Not pixels, mind you: points. Imagine them as pixels with ~zero width - you can keep zooming in, but they never look wider. And yes, I can imagine and visualize a zero-width pixel. Now, how many zero-width pixels does it take lined up end-to-end to make a line? With no spaces between them, of course.)

The second (easier) way to imagine infinity is to examine your average fractal. The mental extrapolation of infinite detail (beyond the limitations of the display/printing technology of the image you’re actually looking at) are nearly automatic.

ETA: thought of a third even easier way. Get two large mirrors. Set them facing each other and roughly parallel. Stand between them, and look into one of them over your reflection’s shoulder.

49

Maybe . . . Check out the Zen Buddhism thread.