Nothing

[Night Fox]

Nothing is seen as black because humans cannot conceive what nothing truly is, so we picture it as what we would imagine it to be.

We see nothing as black, not picture it that way.
You see (almost) nothing every time you look in the black space between stars.

[Ad Bot]

[ßoltster]

What do you picture it as? blackness? White? Well that's something.

Your reasoning is based on one pivotal assumption; that we need to picture things in our heads to comprehend them.

That's wrong. You can have a completely theoretical understanding of something without picturing it; and still comprehend it.

[Dissolve]

The problem is that nothing is completely theoretical, you can never truly achieve it.

Which is basically what my original statement was trying to tell you.

[Deathwish]

We see nothing as black, not picture it that way.
You see (almost) nothing every time you look in the black space between stars.

The visible spectrum is a very, very small band of frequencies. We make assumptions based on what we know, that's sort of what serious astrophysics and particle physics is; a bunch of assumptions based on other assumptions.

[Night Fox]

The visible spectrum is a very, very small band of frequencies. We make assumptions based on what we know, that's sort of what serious astrophysics and particle physics is; a bunch of assumptions based on other assumptions.

You see (almost) nothing

[ßoltster]

The problem is that nothing is completely theoretical, you can never truly achieve it.

Which is basically what my original statement was trying to tell you.

Who said nothing is theoretical?

Nothing is the absence of something. Somewhere, nothing exists. Nothing isn't something.

You're still wrong buddy.

[Dissolve]

You should try to actually understand what I am saying.

The fact that I can not describe what I actually mean by this is hindering my argument.

[Night Fox]

It doesn't matter how you word it.
Nothing will never be equivalent to something.

[Dissolve]

Grammatically, the word "nothing" is an indefinite pronoun, which means that it refers to something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

[Night Fox]

Yes, it refers to something.
That something being nothing.
But nothing is not anything.

[ßoltster]

We're not talking about the word, we're talking about the concept.

Nothing isn't something. It's the absence of something. It can't be the absence of itself, because that would be logically wrong.

[Dissolve]

I really don't know how I can make this any easier for you to understand.

[ßoltster]

I really don't know how I can make this any easier for you to understand.

>Assuming that we don't understand, overlooking the simple fact that you're wrong.

[Dissolve]

Its hard to argue with children now a days.


as Night Fox said
"Nothing refers to something"
"That something being Nothing"

Something == Nothing :: but then :: Nothing =/= Something?

[ßoltster]

Its hard to argue with children now a days.


as Night Fox said
"Nothing refers to something"
"That something being Nothing"

Something == Nothing :: but then :: Nothing =/= Something?

Hard to argue with children because you're losing? My profile age is a joke, I'm 17; kiddo.

What Night Fox said is irrelevant to my argument.