I refer to absolute non-existence or complete emptiness as found in Zen Buddhism.
Are their any beliefs that need to be held before one can assert the validity of void?
I see space as not being completely empty (as I think science is pointing to) and as it is measurable, and has relations to existent things, it belongs to the realm of the existant. So for me void is not space.
I have the following objections to void:
Obviously it is difficult to prove or disprove the validity of absolute non-existence, but I hold that what exists exists. Nothing more can be said as we are only capable of perceiving or knowing the existant.
To say that a particular thing has no existence is contradictory. By naming or conceiving the thing that we assert does no exist we give it conceptual existence. The same is true for absolute non-existence; by asserting void or non-existence as the opposite of existence, we give it existence as a concept.
I believe that existence is total, and non-existence does not-not exist, while also not existing.
Some clarity from a Buddhist would be appreciated. 
I’m not a Buddhist, but Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle says that “absolute void” is a rather misleading concept. One cannot know a particle’s energy and half-life to perfect accuracy simultaneously - accuracy in one leads to vagueness in the other. Since “absolute void” implies an energy of precisely zero, the time for which the system will remain at this energy becomes wildly indeterminate, leading to the existence of virtual particles within this “quantum foam”. (I think I’m correct in saying that the observation of such a particle constitutes a violation of the conservation of momentum. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could expand on this, but it is certainly a useful metaphor to be used by those amongst us more spiritually infatuated than I.)
As for your other objections, does a pattern exist? If you think there is such a thing as a square, or a rhythm, then the thing you conceive of can be said to have existence as a pattern of neuron fire.
Emptiness is a slippery concept, and Buddhist formulations of it differ from one another. I rather like Thich Nhat Hahn’s take on it, which is that “emptiness” does not refer to anything like a physical vacuum (which is, barring a conspiracy by scientists sworn to mislead the lay readers, anything but “empty” at the weird quantum level). Rather, it points to the absence of a separate self for anything–usually directed at people, since we’re egocentric creatures, but equally as much a flower, a rock, a star, whatever. Note this doesn’t necessarily mean the lack of a self, but the lack of a separate self; a flower is a flower, but composed of non-flower elements–the air, the light, the water, the ground, all of which are the dust of many exploded stars, which are and on and on. There is nothing in it that is itself alone, that isn’t in a state of interbeing with everything else, and so it has the quality of “emptiness.”
I saw this coming, Meta-Gumble. And if you return to the thread, I think you need to specify whether you mean a physical void or a metaphysical void.
Meta,
IMHO your general argument against “void” in the sense of “the opposite of entity” is valid. “Entity” is such that it can have no opposite.
“Void” with the sense of “a space not occupied by entities of [this given kind]” is entirely possible as long as the universal quantifier (eg, “all”) is not part of the definition of the kind given.
I know nothing of the term as used in Budhism.
Phsyically speaking, there’s no such creature. Metaphysically speaking, the void is the opposite of everything that is.
As a matter of philosophy, the issue hinges upon whether one considers existence to be a predicate quality. If so, then it seems unavoidable to have the negation of existence (void) be a predicate property, and thus no thing can be void (non-existent), and ‘void’ is a term without application.
If it is not, then is seems unavoidable that the negation of existence is also not a predicate quality, and your argument is unsound. No thing is ‘void’, but void does not depend upon a thing to have meaning.
Well, that’s neither here nor there…(jk)
I think you may have built yourself a semantic moebius.
A good start would be to check out the Bardo Thodol, which is the Tibetan Book of the Dead, specifically wherein it deals with the First Bardo.
Pardon the delay, I clean forgot about this thread!
Ultrafilter:
Yeah! What other kind of void isn’t there? But does the totality of all that exists have an opposite?
IMHO God is present in all things yet is also transcendant and infinite. My problem is contrasting the idea of void with the idea of God’s infinitude. As he created all that is, and is present through all of creation, where does void fit in? You could take the position that it contrasts his ultimate existence as well as our lesser one, and that would be for me the only way void can be considered valid.
However I think that this idea is flawed simply because God created all things and is present in all things (if you take a more scientific view, its only the language and feeling thats different) and hence being both existence and its creator cannot be considered existant in the sense that there is a “voidness” to balance His existence (pardon the male sense of God).
If you accept that, the only position supporting void is that he created a “void” in himself in which to put creation. This void is different, being space - it is existant in the sense of being created by God but empty, and the only kind of void which is possible.
Ah, this brings back some drunken conversations.
IMHO absolute nothingness, or void if you will, is inherently contradictory. Nothingness contains no logical framework which distinguishes being from not-being. So nothingness contains everything. All the bits of everything are therefore the same as one another, but also have independent existence, even though they don’t exist.
Think of it as the classical Chaos, from which all things arise. Or the Tao. Or whatever. I don’t know about Buddhism though.
Hey, it made sense when I was drunk, okay? 