Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 1
    Taking a particular stand on controversial topics like whether physical laws or mathematics or whatnot "exists" and failing to adhere to the standard cosmological meaning of the word "Universe" does not give one a position from which to criticize those who are using standard meanings and take different positions on unresolved issues. Commented Jun 22, 2013 at 18:23
  • @RexKerr, the philosopher's "nothing" is the absence of anything. See, for example, here: Of course, “nothing” is not any kind of thing in the first place but merely the absence of anything. firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing Commented Jun 22, 2013 at 18:30
  • 1
    The SEP entry on nothingness is much more topical and informative regarding nothing: plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness When we are talking about the "Universe", we should probably talk about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe Commented Jun 22, 2013 at 18:52
  • 1
    Indeed, by "Universe", I mean it in the same way as Wiki: "The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence", i.e., all there is. Which is to say, there is no thing that stands apart from or is independent of the Universe. Commented Jun 22, 2013 at 19:03
  • 1
    It could very well be that the philosopher's nothing is an ontological impossibility. In other words: just because we can imagine the concept, doesn't mean it has actual ground in reality. Perhaps Krauss' proposal of nothingness is the closest to the philosopher's nothing that reality can get. Commented Jun 23, 2013 at 0:58