I am confused as to what kind of an issue anyone sees here. There’s this much difficulty in even informally understanding the semantics of the word? Perhaps you’ve been misled by a kind of picture theory of language, thinking that a word of this sort has to reach out and refer to an object in the world or some such thing. But it would be better not to think that way. In what manner does the word generally get used? Let us consider, for example, a sentence like “Nothing’s tastier than apple pie”. Here, clearly, the word does not refer, in any ordinary sense, to a particular tasty object; rather, it is used as a kind of quantifier, to indicate that, well, there simply isn’t any object tastier than apple pie.
I think similar consideration of most other uses of “nothing” will reveal it to be not so queer a word to grasp as the OP suggests. Seems to me, this thread is a whole bunch of nothing.
Actually, I like to think of nothing as infinity’s cousin. It’s more of a mathematical abstract than anything found in reality. Although both concepts seem to be only found in places, such as, nothing existed before the big bang, and after the big bang, the universe might indeed be infinite.
Don’t let semantics muddle up the pure abstract thought behind the concepts.
Every other talk about nothings, seems like it’s making reference to the absence of something expected, or even particular, but I don’t see that as the pure, non-existent “nothing” (e.g. what where you thinking before you were conceived?).
Yes, but you are also in the presence of the absence of *billions * of people, not to mention planets, galaxies, etc. That’s a damn crowded café, with all those absences present.
It’s a philosophy puzzle (and not a new one). As far as I can tell it consists of “Is ‘nothing’ a thing? If not, how come we have a word to describe it?”
But it’s silly, really, because we have words to describe all sorts of concepts - and all sorts of concepts to describe situations that may not resemble the real world in which we live.
Well, it depends what you’re looking for, see? If you came to the café fully expecting to find the planet Jupiter, then, yeah, I suppose you’d have trouble squeezing through the door.
I think I’ve heard this sort of idea before as an argument for the existence of God - that somehow the concept of God would not exist unless He existed. Then again, the God concept could be deconstructed into recognisable constituent parts - observable forces of nature combined with an all-powerful father figure, say. The same can’t be said for the Nothing concept though. We are familiar with relatively empty spaces but nothing we can observe lacks matter, energy and dimensions entirely Except possibly my love-life so we cannot construct the concept of Nothing from pre-existing conceptual building blocks. Tricksy…
Heh… Tried that one on a different message board back in the days when I was a bright-eyed fundie - posted an OP that consisted of something like “If God doesn’t exist, how come we have a word to describe the concept?”.
It was not a quiet message board, but I got only one response, consisting of one word, then the thread sank like a stone.
It drives me up the wall when otherwise well-researched and respectable science programmes, books, articles or museum exhibits say things like “the universe was created from nothing in the instant of the Big Bang”.
I don’t see how that response really works. Big lizards do exist, as does fire, as do wings. A dragon can be ‘built’ from known concepts. As can God (in my humble opinion…).
The paradox comes from a false dichotomy in the initial terms. Nothing and Something are only antonyms in a loose sense. Nothing refers to the absence of something, but Something refers to the presence.
In some cases those might be exclusive or situations, but sometimes they can be inclusive or situations. Such as nothing in the box, but air is in the box and air is something. Both Nothing and Something can coexist.
This is what happens when you let random people evolve a language. Not that there’s much chance of language happening any other way.
As you say, it’s a horribly silly puzzle. Do people get bothered over analogous words such as “nobody”, “something”, “anywhere”, etc.? (“Who is ‘nobody’, and how could they be? Which particular object is generic enough to be the ‘something’? Where is this mysterious ‘anywhere’?!”)
Granted, the word “nothing” is used in a variety of ways, but in the vast majority of prototypical uses, it would be absurd to analyze it the same way one might analyze “water” or “oxygen”, as referring to an actual (perhaps physical) entity out in the world. That’s simply not (fruitfully taken to be) the kind of thing that is going on in most of its uses. Try it for yourself; go find actual examples of people using “nothing” in ordinary language, and observe what is going on there. Don’t think, but look!
Yes, silly, but sort of fun. It’s one of those things you take for granted, and then you suddenly look at it and it doesn’t make sense. Like the word “hello.” What the heck does that mean? (Hijack not intended.)
I’m surprised nobody’s brought up the fact (if it is) that the Romans got along for so long without a symbol for Zero. Or, speaking of puzzles, that the word zero has the same origin, and sometimes meaning, as the word cipher.
The concept of nothing is interesting because it’s a sort of limit, and limits are where stuff gets interesting. How about this definition of “nothing”?
Nothing is the line that separates debt from assets.
Nobody said that (AFAIK). I just found it, here, in this message.
I think the hijack is semi-relevant. “Hello” is a greeting. That’s how it’s used, clearly. The mistake is in thinking that there needs to be anything more to understanding its meaning; it’s meaning simply is its use. Some words have uses which can be fruitfully understood via references to objects in the world or as assertions of certain propositions, but not all do. “Hello” is a fine example to illustrate this point. (If you were committed to having meanings being assertions or some such thing, you could try to rephrase “Hello” as “Now I see you” or some such thing, but what would this artificial manipulation gain you? Is the shoe-horned rephrasing somehow a clearer explication of its meaning than that it is a greeting?)
Aha. “I see you, Murdoc Jern.” (Oooh, I think that quote’s from The Zero Stone. Eerily topical.) So, by the same token (or a similar one), even if one doesn’t believe there can be literal nothingness, the word “nothing” is handy as a short way to say, “There isn’t any thing [in the specified context] that I consider significant.” Something like that?
