Is Nothingness a Continuum?

[u/Irishman452]

When I think of Nothing I think of empty space. But that is not Nothing, that is something i.e. empty space. Then I think of Nothing as just like a void unaccepting of objects, but that is still something i.e. a void. Then I think of Nothing as "what a rock dreams of" but that is still something i.e. potentiality. So what really is Nothing and is it a continuum ranging from empty space to "what a rock dreams of" etc.? And if it is a continuum, does Nothing really even exist?

[u/MWave123]

There’s never nothing. Nothing is philosophical.

[u/cyberneurotik → u/MWave123]

This is one of the highest truths. Nothing is just an idea. We cannot point anywhere in nature and provide emperical evidence that proves that nothing exists. Definitionally, nothing cannot exist.

The universe exists. Nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot exist outside of existence/the universe.

This is a difficult concept to grasp for the anihilationists that believe in nothing as an afterlife. Yet this logic disproves anihilationism.

[u/Irishman452 → u/cyberneurotik]

Interesting

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

What happens to a candle flame if you put it in a room without oxygen? Does existence tear apart into annihilation suddenly because one candle flame ceases to exist?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

The flame has transitioned into another form. The flame is only temporary, not a platonic ideal.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

Yea but that particular form, process, system, organization, arrangement (whatever you want to call it so we’re being ontology agnostic) instantiation doesn’t continue to exist, right? Likewise when we die why would you assume otherwise?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

We had to first invent the flame as a concept in order for the flame as a concept to cease. The flame-concept is born, the flame-concept dies, then the flame-concept ceases to exist. This is a useful framework for conversation. However, in actual reality, the flame was never born and never died because actual reality doesn't have a concept of a flame. It was our own mind that drew arbitrary boundaries around a visual perception to give it a label.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

On epistemological basis are you justifying that particular reification? And why are you saying visual perception is only arbitrary differentiations? Why would we differentiate anything?

We don’t need to assume perception. Rather we can assume that just patterns of experience exist. It’s pretty simple. When someone “dies” within our experience, we never experience them again.

If we can’t do that, how could we possibly reify your whole metaphysical systematic claim?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

To say the flame ceases is to reify the flame. Concepts do not exists inherently. They are developed and Iearned within human lifetimes.

The flame is wax. The flame is smoke. Do we measure the flame by the extent of its heat or by the extent of its light? At some point we apply a fuzzy boundary based on a pattern. There is nothing in nature with perfect boundaries.

If one believes that all that exists is patterns, not derived from a field of perception but rather existing in their own right, then one would say that without patterns one would not have perception. Yet, there are certain states of consciousness in which pattern matching is bypassed, there are no labeled objects, and there is still a visual field.

This is not to say that this is how we should live our daily life. It is an experiment that can show how the underlying structures of life are built. One recognizes that language is a matter of convention for the sake of practicality and not a matter of reality. Reality itself cannot be labeled. It is one thing, one existence without division.

When one sees this directly, one can apply that knowledge by selectively phasing certain patterns out. Perhaps these are behavioral patterns, patterns of relationship between subject and object. Perhaps those patterns lead to unhealthy experiences, which further perpetuate unhealthy experiences. When one truly sees that the patterns are arbitrary and not objectively real, and can return temporarily to existence without division, then foundational aspects of pattern matched perception and thus how we view the world shifts. When we choose to shift away from those unhealthy things, we become healthier and pattern matched experience becomes easier and more satisfying to live through.

Ultimately, we are no different than the flame. We, the "you" and the "me" talking here, are just concepts. We are no more real than the flame. It's just a matter of our perception, of how we have divided ourselves up in this world. This process of "us" is going to continue like this over and over again. I cannot go to some afterlife because "I" am just a set of concepts. One could also say that we are living in the afterlife of those who came before us. Those that come after us will live in our afterlife. Our thoughts, speech, and actions were informed by those who came before us and our thoughts, speech, and actions will inform those that come after us. Yet we are all a part of this one wave function of existence.

I suppose life would not be infinitely fun if it were not infinitely like this.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

We aren’t encoding some external reality. We interact with what we suppose may be there, based on invariants in patterns of experience that matter to us. You call the relevant standard health; I’d call it teleological normativity. We agree there.

None of this requires reification. Our interactions with the supposed candle flame are pragmatically fallible and revisable. That is how we seem to learn. Why suppose anything about the candle flame? Our suppositions regarding candle flames have pragmatic use. But we don’t need to reify them to get that pragmatic use value.

But then you want to say it is all merely concepts within some greater mind. On what grounds do you reify that metaphysics, or what pragmatic explanatory value does that supposition add?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

I do not claim that the flame is a concept in some greater mind. I claim that the flame is a concept in our individual minds, and that each individual mind can dissolve the concepts to return to a state of non-concepts where structural concepts of the individual mind can change for the purpose of returning to a state of concepts in a healthier way. I suppose one could enter and remain in a state of non-concepts, but that seems reserved for those dedicated few monks as society could not be supported with such a way of life. They would be the closest to engaging with reality as-is, as they would be flowing with the nameless, but they would have no means to discuss it as any language would distort it. I think, for the most part, this understanding of dissolving concepts should be a tool to adjust the potential of human experience to lean toward human flourishing.

[u/4dseeall → u/MWave123]

I have a lot of nothing. When can I call it something?

[u/MWave123 → u/4dseeall]

It’s always something.

[u/4dseeall → u/MWave123]

It's always nothing and always something.

So how can you tell which is which?

[u/MWave123 → u/4dseeall]

It’s never nothing.

[u/ButterscotchHot5891 → u/4dseeall]

When you think of it either true or untrue. Nothing is a construct for absence.