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. The word "is" indicates a state of affairs or an identity. "The ball is red" - the ball has a state of affairs of being red. "What is red?" - questions the state of affairs of something we call "red". When the word "nothing" is defined as having no state of affairs, it is a contradiction for one or one's self to answer the question, "what is nothing?". The answer proposes a state of affairs of no state of affairs. 

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. Regardless of the ontological status of "nothing", any time we talk of an absolute 'nothing', we are engaging in a contradiction.

 

 

 

April 2021