Scratch

Nothing itself is a paradox. Because nothing is something.

It’s funny, because nothing is a paradox, but zero, the number to represent nothing, isn’t a paradox because it’s just a place-holder for a the non-existant nothing.

So isn’t the word nothing just a placeholder for a paradox? If so, It’s still impossible to do nothing, that you are right about, but nothing doesn’t necessarily not exist because it means nothing. Therefore, nothing must not be something. Because technically nothing is something because it is a placeholder for an unnamed paradox. Even if you aren’t thinking of the word nothing as a placeholder, but as a representation, then it still means nothing which isn’t something because it is nothing because it means what is not something.

Doing nothing is impossible anyways because you are always existing, and if you’re not, then you are nothing. By being nothing you are a paradox, and therefore do and do not exist because what could be you is a fuzzy, unrealistic limbo of you’re living and nonliving. Although, that is only if the “Schrodinger’s Cat Conundrum” law exists. If it doesn’t, you don’t exist, and wouldn’t have the ability to do anything. Including not existing, because you aren’t.

In conclusion, doing nothing is only possible if you don’t exist. But by not existing, you can’t exist to do nothing.

Zero represents nothingness as a number though. That’s why you can’t divide by zero.

How many times does nothing go into ten?

It doesn’t make sense. And because it is neither positive or negative, that’s what makes it nothingness.

Like dark matter, and normal matter. Nothingness is no matter.

Kileymeister wrote:

it is impossible to do nothing simply because you are always moving (no matter how slightly) or performing some subconscious action.

Earlier, I wrote:

Nothing itself is a paradox. Because nothing is something.

It’s funny, because nothing is a paradox, but zero, the number to represent nothing, isn’t a paradox because it’s just a place-holder for a the non-existant nothing.

So isn’t the word nothing just a placeholder for a paradox? If so, It’s still impossible to do nothing, that you are right about, but nothing doesn’t necessarily not exist because it means nothing. Therefore, nothing must not be something. Because technically nothing is something because it is a placeholder for an unnamed paradox. Even if you aren’t thinking of the word nothing as a placeholder, but as a representation, then it still means nothing which isn’t something because it is nothing because it means what is not something.

Doing nothing is impossible anyways because you are always existing, and if you’re not, then you are nothing. By being nothing you are a paradox, and therefore do and do not exist because what could be you is a fuzzy, unrealistic limbo of you’re living and nonliving. Although, that is only if the “Schrodinger’s Cat Conundrum” law exists. If it doesn’t, you don’t exist, and wouldn’t have the ability to do anything. Including not existing, because you aren’t.

In conclusion, doing nothing is only possible if you don’t exist. But by not existing, you can’t exist to do nothing.

henley wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

it is impossible to do nothing simply because you are always moving (no matter how slightly) or performing some subconscious action.

Earlier, I wrote:

Nothing itself is a paradox. Because nothing is something.

It’s funny, because nothing is a paradox, but zero, the number to represent nothing, isn’t a paradox because it’s just a place-holder for a the non-existant nothing.

So isn’t the word nothing just a placeholder for a paradox? If so, It’s still impossible to do nothing, that you are right about, but nothing doesn’t necessarily not exist because it means nothing. Therefore, nothing must not be something. Because technically nothing is something because it is a placeholder for an unnamed paradox. Even if you aren’t thinking of the word nothing as a placeholder, but as a representation, then it still means nothing which isn’t something because it is nothing because it means what is not something.

Doing nothing is impossible anyways because you are always existing, and if you’re not, then you are nothing. By being nothing you are a paradox, and therefore do and do not exist because what could be you is a fuzzy, unrealistic limbo of you’re living and nonliving. Although, that is only if the “Schrodinger’s Cat Conundrum” law exists. If it doesn’t, you don’t exist, and wouldn’t have the ability to do anything. Including not existing, because you aren’t.

In conclusion, doing nothing is only possible if you don’t exist. But by not existing, you can’t exist to do nothing.

Nothing is not something, therefore it is not a paradox.

And 0 and nothing are ever so slightly different concepts.

And Schrodinger’s Cat has little relevance, that deals with laws of quantum physics.  You cannot become nothing if you were something.

Last edited by Kileymeister (2011-03-14 22:00:35)

I've always thought about that.

Sometimes, on my way to science or math or orchestra, I wonder if you were to misplace something, would it be considered non-existant until you found it again?
People always make misconceptions about nothing. It is not a black hole or zero. It is also not "not there." Nothing could be considered a paradox, because it is the absense of something that either never existed, or is gone and will never exist again.

soupoftomato wrote:

It's not a paradox! It's the actual state of non-existence.

If something is "not there" it does not exist there, so NOTHING exists there.

It's not a verb, the only way you guys seem to use it.

It’s only a paradox is the “Schrodinger’s Cat” law is true.

Exactly.

We’re not using it as a verb. We’re using it as a noun. A direct object to be precise.

I am doing nothing

Who is doing nothing? I, Subject pronoun.

What is being said about I? I am doing. Am, helping verb. Doing, verb.

Am doing what? Nothing. Verify the noun. Does nothing mean the same thing as I? No. Nothing, Direct Object.

Hooray, sentence classification.
Nothing, isn’t the verb. Being, or doing is the verb.

Kileymeister wrote:

Nothing is not something, therefore it is not a paradox.

And 0 and nothing are ever so slightly different concepts.

And Schrodinger’s Cat has little relevance, that deals with laws of quantum physics.  You cannot become nothing if you were something.

Touche.

That’s because zero is the placeholder number (2,011), and a number that represents nothingness.

I was talking about the hazy existence of nothingness in comparison to something. That was the only example I could think of that was as relevant as possible. And I didn’t even claim it was true. After all, later on, Einstein (I think) proved it wrong.

samurai786 wrote:

I've always thought about that.

Sometimes, on my way to science or math or orchestra, I wonder if you were to misplace something, would it be considered non-existant until you found it again?No. Because then it wouldn’t be where you found it.
People always make misconceptions about nothing. It is not a black hole or zero.I never said it was a black hole or zero. I said zero was a number having the meaning of nothingness, but I didn’t say it is zero. It is also not "not there." Nothing could be considered a paradox, because it is the absense of something that either never existed, or is gone and will never exist again.Because it is nothing. That’s its definition, pretty much.

Grr. Why didn’t you do lines like everyone else? I’ll just color in my thoughts.

You take up space therefore you are doing something...

TVflea wrote:

Enzo1997 wrote:

You take up space therefore you are doing something...

that means you exist but if you don't exist, you are still doing something.that means you can't not do anything.

What?  If you don't exist you aren't doing anything, because there is nothing of you to do anything.  However, it is impossible to not exist because you already do.

For example, scrimpoppets don't do anything because they don't exist.

Last edited by Kileymeister (2011-03-15 15:22:09)

TVflea wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

TVflea wrote:

that means you exist but if you don't exist, you are still doing something.that means you can't not do anything.

What?  If you don't exist you aren't doing anything, because there is nothing of you to do anything.  However, it is impossible to not exist because you already do.

For example, scrimpoppets don't do anything because they don't exist.

but if you don't exist, you are not existing and the only

way that could happen is if your parents were never born and it keeps going down until the Big Bang and if that didn't happen, nothing happened which means you would finally not exist because obviously, you wouldn't happen if nothing happens and since we are all "happening" that means you can't do nothing

What?  Is that an excerpt from Karl Pilkington or something?  I honestly couldn't make heads or tails of that.  Are you talking of time travel?

If something exists, it cannot cease to exist.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so even if something is vaporized its matter still exists, therefore it still exists.

Kileymeister wrote:

henley wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

It's not a paradox! It's the actual state of non-existence.

If something is "not there" it does not exist there, so NOTHING exists there.

It's not a verb, the only way you guys seem to use it.

It’s only a paradox is the “Schrodinger’s Cat” law is true.

I didn't write it before, I only said it relates to quantum physics, but Schrodinger's Cat is supposed to be wrong.  Using the believed laws of quantum physics (which were also wrong at the time), Schrodinger made a situation that disproved them, which became Schrodinger's Cat.  Schrodinger knew his scenario didn't work (after all it was ridiculous, a cat being dead and alive at the same time), and showed it to people to prove that some quantum physics laws were incorrect.

So still no paradox.

I never said it was true. I said that was if it was true. Which it is not. Therefore, no paradox. I wan’t trying to prove a paradox.

Kileymeister wrote:

henley wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

I didn't write it before, I only said it relates to quantum physics, but Schrodinger's Cat is supposed to be wrong.  Using the believed laws of quantum physics (which were also wrong at the time), Schrodinger made a situation that disproved them, which became Schrodinger's Cat.  Schrodinger knew his scenario didn't work (after all it was ridiculous, a cat being dead and alive at the same time), and showed it to people to prove that some quantum physics laws were incorrect.

So still no paradox.

I never said it was true. I said that was if it was true. Which it is not. Therefore, no paradox. I wan’t trying to prove a paradox.

Oh, sorry.  Thought you meant it the other way around.

me too

BlahBlahRatSheep wrote:

Are we having a discussing about nothingness again? 

i guess