Several posters have already clearly explained that if “X” is only a concept, “X” does not in fact exist. If Silly-Beppo is only as a concept, Silly-Beppo does not exist.
“Nothing” is a state or condition, not a thing. A vacuum is a state or condition, not a thing.
I might as well be pissing into the wind here, right?
Please understand that I am not playing with anyone… perhaps intelectual intercourse. I am actually very interested in this. For some reason though nobody seems to be able to read a dictionary. Others seem to find it acceptable to make up thier own definitions for things. If this is going to be the case I do not see how this conversation can continue. I use the dictionary because it should be an agreed upon source for the English language and if you aren’t going to use those rules you might as well try talking to me in Tagolog, which I also don’t understand.
Please reread the definition of Concept = something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
thought = concept…
therefore… to quote Joe Random “Conceptualizing something merely causes your thoughts to exist.”
Main Entry: con·cep·tu·al·ize
Pronunciation: -'sep-ch&-w&-"lIz, -ch&-"lIz, -shw&-"lIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1878
: to form a concept of
Main Entry: 2thought
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English thOht; akin to Old English thencan to think – more at THINK
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the action or process of thinking : COGITATION b : serious consideration 2 a : reasoning power b : the power to imagine : CONCEPTION 3 : c : something (as an opinion or belief) in the mind
Although noone else seems to be able to grasp this, and then consider the possibility of NOTHING EXISTS which it cannot by definition. I am starting to come to some sort of conclusion… perhaps NOTHING is an undefinable term with what we have to work with. Not to say we need new language for it but that we need some new logical terms for describing it. I think that understanding the concept of nothing could be of great practical use not only for other areas of philosophical debate but to the understanding of Quantum Theory.
I don’t think I am being an ass, however if you all feel that I am then case closed. I will discuss this no further.
Perhaps I will go find something opinion based were we can all just agree to disagree.
El Kabong that is silly… Quote “Several posters have already clearly explained that if “X” is only a concept, “X” does not in fact exist.”
Concept=something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
So you agree with several posters that THOUGHT does not in fact exist.
I would tell you to think about what you said, however you and several posters can’t because THOUGHT doesn’t EXIST
Weird.
“Nothing” is not an object. Therefore, saying “nothing exists” is a logically invalid phrase, much like “blue exists”. “Blue” is a color. Blue things exist, but you cannot pull the “blue” out and say that it exists by itself. “Blue” is always qualified. “Nothing” must be similarly qualified. You might, for instance, say “There is nothing in this box” to mean that the box is empty.
You’re trying to cram a round peg into a square hole (so to speak),
The concept of “nothing” seems to be understood quite well by everyone in this thread but yourself. From what I can tell, your problem is that you’re taking dictionary definitions and splicing them together in odd configurations. “Let’s take this definition of ‘nothing’, and that definition of ‘exist’, add a pinch of ‘concept’, and bake at 400°F for 2 hours.”
Joe Random-- you have stated that Invisible Pink Unicorns don’t exist as if this is a fact. Is it a fact? Can you prove it?
If you can prove that, can you also prove that God does not exist?
I thought the whole idea of the IPU is that God and the IPU are in the same boat: one can say that one or both exists, but one can not prove it.
Pretty much. For something to be pink, it must reflect photons. For something to be invisible, all photons must pass through it with no interaction. Something cannot simultaneously reflect some photons while allowing unfettered passage of all photons. Ergo, for something to be both invisible and pink is a contradiction. Thus there are no invisible pink entities.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is defined as being an invisible pink entity, which I have demonstrated is impossible.
Thus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist.
For certain definitions of “God”, yes. The problem is, God is not usually well-defined enough to logically refute. There’s also the problem that a good many of those who would engage in an existence-of-God debate on the God side of the fence tend to be impervious to logic, rendering any attempt at disproving God useless in such debates (although it’s still fun to do).
That’s where things get interesting. As soon as someone arguing for God attempts to weasel out of an apparent contradiction in how they have God defined by throwing the “God is beyond logic” card, their opponent is then allowed to throw down that same card to eliminate the Invisible/Pink contradiction. So the only way to rein in (heh) the IPU is to force the debate to adhere to accepted logical standards, which then brings God back into the realm of logic.
Thus, either God and the IPU are equally valid, or God is constrained to logic, which almost always reveals a contradiction in His definition, making God and the IPU equally invalid. The only way that God can survive is to make the concept of God so ill-defined that logic can’t find anything to latch onto, which tends to result in a rather meaningless and useless concept of God.
The IPU is truly a powerful entity to be able to defy God so. All hail the IPU!
I can see where you’re arguing from, Beppo, but ‘exists as a concept’ isn’t a particularly useful definition of ‘exists’ (at least in practical terms.
Passenger: Is there any way you can get me to Heathrow in time for my flight?
Taxi Driver: There exists a way sir, yes
P: Great! What are we waiting for? Let’s go!
T: Well, I said ‘there exists a way’, but it involves me transmuting my taxi into a supersonic time-travelling helicopter…
P: <punches taxi driver in the face>
Existence physically != Existence as a concept.
Think of a Venn diagram with two overlapping circles. In one circle (A) is everything that exists physically. In the other circle (B) is everything that exists as a concept. In the overlap (AB) is everthing that exists physically that can also be conceptualized.
I put it to you that the IPU is in the (B not AB) sector.
I’ve ridden in that very taxi. I didn’t leave a tip.
Uh, I’m really not going to continue to play in a thread where the majority of the OP’s responses are dictionary quotes, and the rest are non sequiters, but no one here, least of all me, has said that thoughts do not exist. Nor are we responsible for your willful misunderstandings. I believe you’re yanking everyone’s chain here. Hope you’ve found it entertaining.
Cheers.
I’m with you, El_Kabong. I’m getting suspicious since first S-B did as if he knows nothing about philosophy and stuff and fumbled a crazy OP together, then gets irked when I make fun of his ignorance and pulls the word ‘straw man’ right out of his suddenly much fuller hat. Or some part of his anatomy.
Good luck with your quest to knowledge S-B, if you are really sincere. If you can’t get around the one distinction everyone here has tried to get into your head, however, we cannot even begin to have a sensible debate. You know what I’m talking about, the category mistake.
Aside to: I Love Me, Vol. I: see why we’re careful around here? 
Ok, this discussion is, or should be metaphysical. This discussion may seem silly, however why should we discuss any number of topics ? Why discuss the nature of god ? Time, morals, existence ?
I see no reason to have to defend the use of a dictionary - it is a means of common ground within the english language. If everyone chose their own meanings for words how could communication take place. Mathematics for instance are built upon a set of rules, and if the accepted rules state that 1+4=5 and then you come along and tell me that 1+4=6 Mathematics becomes useless. Now you all seem to want to use nothing as a pronoun- to mean - not any thing, as in there is nothing in this box. I am talking more about Nothing as a noun- to mean - something that does not exist, or the absence of all magnitude or quantity. To think that I am some kind of moron, idiot, or troublemaker is not only insulting to me but to many modern and ancient writers and philosophers who have had something to say about nothing. Here is a short list.
Modern writers who have had something to say about nothing include:
Barrett, William, Irrational Man. New York, 1958.
Bergson, Henri, L’Evolution creatrice. Paris, 1907. Translated by Arthur Mitchell as Creative Evolution. London, 1911.
Carnap, Rudolph, “The Elimination of Metaphysics,” in A. J. Ayer, ed., Logical Posivitism. Glencoe, Ill., 1959. Pp. 69–73.
Edwards, Paul, “Professor Tillich’s Confusions.” Mind, N. S. Vol. 74 (1965), 192-214.
Findlay, J. N., Meinong’s Theory of Objects and Values, 2d ed. Oxford, 1963.
Heidegger, Martin, Sein und Zeit. Halle, 1927. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson as Being and Time. New York, 1962.
Heidegger, Martin, Was ist Metaphysik? bonn, 1929; 4th ed., Frankfurt, 1943. Translated by R. F. C. Hull and Alan Crick as “What is Metaphysics?,” in W. Brock, ed., Existence and Being. London, 1949.
Heidegger, Martin, Einfuhrung in die Metaphysik. Tubingen, 1953. Translated by Ralph Manheim as An Introduction to Metaphysics. New Haven, 1959.
Lazerowitz, Morris, Structure of Metaphysics. London, 1955.
Munitz, M. K., Mystery of Existence. New York, 1965.
Prior, A. N., “Non-entities,” in R. J. Butler, ed., Analytical Philosophy I. Oxford and New York, 1962.
Quine, W. V., From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, Mass., 1953.
Russell, Bertrand, “On Denoting.” Mind, N. S. Vol. 14 (1905), 479–493.
Sartre, Jean-Paul, L’Etre et le neant. Paris, 1943. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes as Being and Nothingness. London, 1957.
Taylor, Richard, “Negative Things.” Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 49, No. 13 (1952), 433–448.
Tillich, Paul, The Courage to Be. New Haven, 1952.
Toms, Eric, Being, Negation and Logic. Oxford, 1962.
Now where have I seen that bibliography before?
Good work, jjimm.
Ladies and gentlemen, we see here the amazing influence the SDMB can have on someone’s spelling and language skills: compare the OP with S-B’s last post. All in the course of a single day.
By the way, it suddenly seems as our esteemed OP doesn’t want to discuss IPU’s at all but rather the concept of nothing or nothingness. Well, if that is what you really wanted, you shouldn’t be surprised that we never engaged in any debate on that matter. Read the title of your OP, Silly-Boy, err, Beppo.
Yes exactly I came upon the encylopedia of philosophy last night while trying to come up with something more to support the fact that what I am talking about does have some merit. If you bothered to read all that I posted talking about “Nothing” was what I intended, however to support the way I was going to state my argument I needed to start with that foundation… that a concept does exist… somewhere somehow… as a thought is fine by me. I stated that the IPU was merely a function of my argument. What the hell is wrong with you people ? My whole argument hinged on the fact that a thought, opinion, concept does exist. I could have chose anything… I could have said do numbers exist… All that was important was that whatever I chose did not physically exist. How did I become the bad guy here ?
More importantly why do I care.
You all here only exist as can be seen by the words that appear on the screen - which translates to a thought in my head.
I was truly excited about discussing this and many other things, I can be swayed from my point of view - however it seems that you cannot. It all seems so simple if you do not dig to deep, Nothing as a Noun does not exist, its synonym ZERO does not exist either, it is merely a place holder.
BTW I didn’t say it, but I admit defeat. My gun is out of ammo, and I have no reserves. I couldn’t even find anyone to play devils advocate…
You win, I lose.
You might have won, if anyone had the slightest clue what you were on about.
You seem to be insisting that, if someone conceives of something, that it exists. This insistence is entirely the behest of dictionary definitions, rather than plain common sense. Dictionaries are useful, but they’re not the sole delineator of what a concept means.
Posting a whole load of book titles, nicked from another site, that you have no more read than I have, is no sort of argument.
Note this is my final posting on this matter. I apologize for any inconvenience you may have suffered in my little search for understanding and no thanks are needed for engorging your aggrandized egos at the same time. I came upon this site to discuss a not entirely completed idea of mine and through your pecking, bullying and self absorbed meanderings I have come upon a grand established philosophical concept. Perhaps this Message board is not as worthless as I might have thought.
Yours Truly,
Silly Beppo
Erik Williams
None of us having this discussion are really conceptualizing an invisible pink unicorn, because it is impossible to conceive of such a thing. We can put the individually meaningful words together in a string, but the desciption “invisible pink” is meaningless.
When we read the words, some of us may be thinking of a wholly pink unicorn that can turn invisible at will (during which times, it would no longer be pink.) We might envision a unicorn that, by virtue of its skin pigmentation, ought to be reflecting light at a wavelength in the “pink” band, but for some magical reason it is not doing so. Whatever creative solution we might be using to visualize a unicorn that is pink and invisible, we certainly aren’t thinking of a unicorn that is simultaneously pink and invisible.
Since “invisible pink unicorn” has no referent in either the real world, or even in abstract thought, the phrase is meaningless gibberish. Therefore the statement “the invisible pink unicorn exists” is neither true nor false, because it is not a proposition at all. It is a nonsense sentence. We cannot say IPUs exist or don’t exist, because we cannot meaningfully discuss them.
engorging your aggrandized egos
pecking, bullying and self absorbed meanderings
I saw none of the above - I saw you being rather incoherent, people asking you to clarify (without any joy), making suggestions (without much response), then you having a hissy fit and saying you’re buggering off now.
Oh well.