A TREATISE ABOUT NOTHING

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth 

 

In a scientific or colloquial sense, the word 'nothing' can have a host of meanings. When we say, "There is nothing in the jar.", we can mean that there are zero things of value to be found inside the jar. We do not mean that there is no air, dust etc. in the jar. However, in a strict logical sense, 'nothing' is referenced in an absolute context. No matter, no gravity, no light, in essence no properties. In this context, 'nothing' is incoherent.

One can ask, "What is nothing?", however, in a logical sense, any answer to this question would be a contradiction and incoherent. Every answer would reference a property that is a thing, such as, "'Nothing' is without properties". The "is" in the answer defines 'nothing' as if it were a thing to be analyzed. That would render the question a contradiction, as in "nothing is a something".

One could argue that 'nothing' cannot be 'something' if it has no properties. This demonstrates that 'nothing' "has" something. A property was given to 'nothing', the property of not having properties. The non-existence of properties is a contradiction (no properties = a property), therefore, the existence of properties ('something') is a necessity.

We can also evaluate 'nothing' this way: 'Nothing' would have no change, since change would be a property. Time is a measurement of change. If there is no change, there is no time. Therefore, at no time was there 'nothing'.

If it was proposed that 'nothing' was coherent, it would be something having the property of being coherent. Any time we talk of an absolute 'nothing', we are engaging in a contradiction.

 

 

 

April 2021