Paradox of nothigness?

[Patok]

I was thinking recently about philosophical issues and I came up to following "paradox" (or maybe there are just some false assumptions in it):
Is it true that nothigness exists? (with objections)

1. TRUE -> Nothingness must exists, because the sentence "nonexistence of nothigness" is internaly contradictory (-> nonreality) .

2. FALSE -> Nothingness implies nonexistence, so there cannot be an option that it exists (-> reality)

My conclusion is that 1) there must be reality as well as nonreality,

2) following with those assumptions there was a reality before the big-bang.

However I don't know if there is not any error in it. What do you think?

[ajasatya]

9 minutes ago, Patok said:

However I don't know if there is not any error in it. What do you think?

who
are
you?

[now is forever]

mhhh, the 1) conclusion is not quite right, as following the logic, there is no nonreality as there is no nonexistence - therefore there would be only reality, that would mean that what you perceive as nonreality is only a facet of reality. assumption 2) is right because if reality includes everything then there would be of course have been always reality even though this would have been nonexistence. so 2. is right as there must be nonexistence what would imply there is nonreality what make 1) right....where did i loose it the nothing.

Edited March 25, 2019 by now is forever

[Mu_]

To me this question comes down to what are you referring to by nothing. 

If your just pointing to empty space then it’s pretty likely u just don’t have an instrument fine enough to see what’s in that space. 

But if your refering to nothing as in that which underlie everything then nothing is all there is.

However if you want to know if there is literally nothing as in the abscence of anything. Then that is false. There are no absent places for there will always be that which always is and is everywhere. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mu_

[now is forever]

the thing is it doesn’t work out because nothingness never implied nonexistence it implies only the absence of thingness. would you say space is inexistent because it’s empty? would you say chaos is inexistent because it’s logic?

Edited March 25, 2019 by now is forever

[Zetxil]

Let's work through it together!

When we conjure up a paradox of concepts, comparing something to the exact opposite, we bring into light both concepts! In our case here we have something like this: (Anything) versus (Nothing). But the concept of nothing is a fun contemplation because as humans we have no real concept of nothing except in the total absence of something! So one could maybe see it like this (Anything) versus (                ). <-- even this is a little wrong because there is still a boundry around the concept of nothing. In other words nothing has to be contained for it to exist and if there is a container something exists! 

Boundaries can't exist in complete nothing (That is a theory of what was before the big bang: no container).

 No one knows what happened before they were born experientially (that's a fun analogy to the big bang)

30 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

who
are
you?

@ajasatya

That seems to be the question, doesn't it? 

[cetus]

@Patok If you try to grasp nothingness with the mind it will forever elude you.

It is everywhere and nowhere. See what I mean

[Forestluv]

@Patok 

There is no way to step outside of nothing and try to define it. As soon as one idea appears, or one word appears, it is not longer nothing. It is a something. 

It can be fun to conceptualize nothing and create all sorts of thought experiments. Yet just be aware it's not nothing. It's a something.

[Highest]

Drop your logical stuff bro