Nothing is anything

The nothing


Nothing can be something

It is not possible to think about nothing without making it something.

That is to say, it is not even possible to think about nothing. If we do it anyway, we are only concerned with our idea that we have of nothing. We then deal with a phantom. It can take a different shape for everyone.

We do not know whether there is something somewhere in some unknown dimensional sphere that corresponds to what we mean when we speak of nothing. If it is actually more than an intellectual gimmick, it may be a (still) unknown Principle of existence, which in our causal world, which consists of polarities, dualisms, coordinates and processes, cannot be grasped with association. That is why we need new, as yet unknown “instruments for association”.

And as long as we don't have spaceships with which we can cross the universe in real time, for example to explore the “edge” of the universe on site (because who knows, maybe new aspects will open up there that make associations possible were previously absolutely impossible), our thoughts and ideas on the subject of "nothing" will likely always remain unsatisfactory. A real one really A promising approach to researching nothing will therefore only exist in the very distant future.

I can imagine it, so there’s somewhere

Black holes give themselves away through the spatial distortion they create. By its very nature, nothing has such shadow-casting properties.

Nothingness may have its origin in the following association: Since there is something (existence, the universe), there must or could also be the opposite or an opposite pole to it.

The theory of the particle-antiparticle concept from physics is very well suited as a “motivator” to believe in this possibility: All elementary particles have their personal antiparticle, an opposite pole - why that Principle of Existence then not too?

But considering the fact that we don't even really know what something is - that is, matter, space, time, energy, but also Thoughts, Consciousness, and Perception - it is quite daring to believe that you can know what nothing could be.

The perception of nothing

In order to be able to describe something in words that are more than theoretical and logical considerations, we have to perceive it in some way. And since nothing is also something (something that we think about, talk about, etc.) - even if its existential character is actually only a fictional one - we should also be able to perceive it with some senses. But all that is possible for us are theoretical considerations. These will always remain incomplete because we have no way of verifying or otherwise comparing them. The philosophy of nothing is like a theory about a theory. So if we philosophize about nothingness, think about it and treat it as a phenomenon, it should be clear to us that this approach is actually unsuitable:

No matter what we do and what systems, philosophies, dialectics, ideologies, beliefs, ways of thinking or methods we use to shed light on the essence of nothing: If these methods also work for the exploration of something, they are of no use for understanding nothing.

The fact is: all methods available to us were developed by “something-beings” in a “something-world”. If we think we can apply it to something that is not a something, we have not understood what non-research is about.

The zero dimension

So when we deal with nothing we forget that it is a phenomenon that we have invented or postulated. Because we don't talk about it because we have seen it or experienced it in some other way, but because we are able to imagine it and then make it plausible with logical considerations.

In order to be able to understand nothing better, it might help if we explain it as a dimension: If we add two more dimensions to the three known spatial dimensions, we have the following hierarchy:

  • 0. Dimension: Nothing - no point
  • 1st dimension: infinitely small point - a point
  • 2nd dimension: infinitely thin line (first dimension of the standard model) - two (corner) points
  • 3rd dimension: infinitely thin surface (second dimension of the standard model) - three or more (corner) points
  • 4th dimension: 3-dimensional space, cube, pyramid etc. (third dimension of the standard model) - four or more (corner) points

A time dimension (normally our 4th, here it would be the 5th) is omitted in this model, since it cannot be clearly clarified where it should be inserted in the order of precedence. Because if we can imagine a flatland, for example, then only because it is also in heras in 3-dimensional space, there is a chronological sequence of events. The time dimension does not have to (or can?) Not be the first one that is added later. But where exactly it should be inserted cannot be said without further investigation. That's why there aren't any in this model - it wouldn't be necessary anyway. It is also still not clear whether what we perceive as time is even a dimension.

The first dimension (the infinitely small point) would already be considered as a candidate for nothing, because something "infinitely small" is just as inconceivable as an "infinitely large" or "nothing". Nevertheless, an infinitely small point is more than no point.

In the extended dimensional model, nothing corresponds to the zero dimension. This does not help us to understand the essence of nothing better, but by classifying it in the dimensional model, which is structured hierarchically, we get an illustrated one approach for this impossible endeavor. More is not possible.

The freely associated categories of nothing

Nothing is the idealized negation of space, time, matter, energy etc. It is the absence of EVERYTHING, thus also the absence of empty space, because this is something: a region of expansion without substance. We cannot assign values ​​or properties to nothing. If we do it, it is no longer nothing. I am currently aware of four different types of nothingness.

Emptiness: the apparent nothing

Sometimes the vacuum is referred to as nothing. Scientists speak of physical nothing. From a pragmatic perspective, however, the vacuum is not nothing. It can be called “spatial expansion without Substance ”, matter, however, as“ spatial expansion With Substance ”. Both types of expansion are one something. So the nothingness of the vacuum is just a kind of optical illusion.

Since we are used to understanding something tangible (i.e. objects) by something, the vacuum appears to us like nothing. But although the vacuum has no substance, it does not consist of nothing, for we can perceive it. We can “see” it because it has certain dimensions (height, width, depth). This empty space that contains nothing but itself is something: expansion. To understand the vacuum as nothing is therefore a fallacy.

Not-being-there: the absence-nothingness

The absence-nothing is, so to speak, the "everyday form" of a nothing, as we all know it: an object has disappeared, it is not where it should have been. There, where something should be, there is nothing (apart from the empty or air-filled space). We experience this nothing in everyday life in a very real way, it has a fixed place in our lives. Things are only existent for us if we can dispose of them or if we are in a relationship with them.

It is normal for us that objects or people suddenly no longer exist (they have disappeared). We can benefit from it when something no longer exists (for example, debt). If our car is suddenly gone (for us it no longer exists), we have a loss. The absence-nothingness thus has a worldly character, and we rarely, if at all, consider it from a philosophical point of view. It's banal.

The ideal: the associative nothing

The associative nothing is the nothing that is mostly spoken of when philosophizing about nothing. It has a hypothetical, speculative character and is highly dependent on the person who deals with it. The existence of the associative nothing stands or falls with the attention we pay to it. Even though nothing is nothing, we still associate it or imagine it, although we only succeed in it in a vague manner. With this imagination, we give nothing a kind of status: We make it (our actually fictional association) a phenomenon, and thus something.

Just because we are able to imagine something, does not mean that the result of our imagination also makes sense. However, we assume: "I can introduce it, so there must be something to it," we think.

The nonexistence: the real nothing

The real nothing is the real nothing. Non-existence is a better term for it. In contrast to the absence-nothingness, which interacts with a potentially real something (by indicating that something is gone, which could also be there), the non-existence has no relation whatsoever to anything. While the associative nothing can theoretically still be assigned a certain energy value (for example negative energy), the real nothing is completely energyless. It cannot be associated, it cannot be related to anything. Therefore there is nothing that can be said about real nothing, pure non-existence.


Playing with nothing

Real nothing can only exist in non-existence.

Nothing can only be true nothing if it is nothing. That means: so that nothing exist can, may it doesn't exist. However, that doesn't make any sense, and so we recognize our philosophizing about nothing as what it is from the start: an intellectual gimmick.

Otherwise nothing would be a different kind of existence, a completely alien form of existence or energy that could still be discovered (for example outside of the universe). But that would not really mean nothing. Therefore the (existing) nothing is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, preoccupation with nothing is downright idle. There are thousands of books that deal with nothing, and the result is likely the same for all of them: nothing! But the idea, the intellectual concept of nothing, obviously fascinates us. That's why we came up with it.

We know that there is something (the universe), so we associate the counterpart, because we can. We are able to form sentences that do not make sense and we are able to make up things that do not exist or have no meaning. We can think of nothing, so so do we. For this reason alone there is nothing for us.


The polar logic of our thinking

Perhaps our tendency to think in polarities is also responsible for the fact that we feel compelled to associate nothing: We cannot imagine one without its opposite.

We can only speak of brightness because there is also darkness, of warmth only because there is cold, of consciousness only because there is unconsciousness, etc. And our assumption that there must be nothing is based on this logic. “There is something, so there must also be its counterpart,” is our thought. But we overlook the following:

Darkness and lightness are not really two complementary, polar quantities or values ​​that oppose each other, because darkness has no energy value - not even a negative one. There is actually no such thing as "darkness", only the absence of light. We call this absence darkness. If it were not so, the following experiment should be possible:

In a room by it there is neither darkness nor brightness, we should be able to create lightness or darkness. But that is not possible, because this special room does not exist.

Polarity and apparent polarity

The same is true for many other polarities: cold is just the absence of warmth, unconsciousness is the absence of consciousness. Darkness, cold and unconsciousness cannot be created by adding energy, for example. Darkness, cold and unconsciousness stay behindwhen light, warmth and awareness removed become. Emptiness (an empty vessel) remains when we remove the contents of the vessel. It doesn't work the other way around: We cannot add or remove emptiness, because we cannot handle nothing, but always only something.

We cannot put nothing somewhere and thus displace something. That is why it is not possible to suppress a nothing with something. We can only replace one thing with something else.

We cannot add cold, darkness or unconsciousness and then have more of it. If you add “nothing” to something, the something is not smaller afterwards. A thousand plus zero still equals a thousand. All of these may be idle thoughts, but they can be fun. Because everything we can imagine and think up is fun when it's interesting.

These analogies show that nothing is actually not really nothing at all. Somebody once said: “Everything we can imagine is there somewhere and at some point.” But this statement is just a sentence that we quickly pronounce without ever being able to verify it.

All theories about nothing will always be mind games. And so it is with what I am writing about nothing: Just a game.


Last change: 22/04/21