Comments To Reflection On The Idea Of Nothing

Reflection on the idea of nothing Written in purple davis has. On the reference of the idea of nothing It seems to me that there can be no absolute nothing. Arguments: • an idea is not nothing; indeed, every posible cognitive system is material and, therefore, is a function of matter; it is something material: as a material state of a material system; therefore, until we have any idea, the absolute nothing cannot be. • on the other hand, if the quantity of energy from universe is constant, that is, if energy cannot be destroyed, but only transformed from a state in an another state, than outer nothing cannot be, therefore absolute nothing cannot be, that is nothing both inside and outside, cannot be. If the empty space is indestructible, than the same it holds. On the content of the idea of nothing By our experience of relative nothing(e.g., an empty box or by the experince of relative destruction) we can arrive, by mental operations, at the idea of absolute nothing, by extension. Or by thinking at a continuously reduction of a cognitive content of an idea(e.g., we can arrive until the idea of 0). As we can arrive at the idea of infinit...That is, by increasing continuously somehow an cognitive content. But, any idea in order to be understooded should to have a content. This idea (of absolute nothingness) is not any idea and, in order to be “understooded” it should not be even considered an idea. Thus, the idea of absolut nothingness should not have a content because it can not be understooded, because it is not an idea. Thus, idea of nothing cannot be understooded without starting or relating it with something positive content. It can be understooded not relating it to anything outside its sphere, outside nothingness. I relate it only to itself, to nothingness but I don’t get anywhere. 0 is understooded relative to quantity. The empty can be understooded only relative to matter or physical and space and time.

That is why, the idea of nothing have, however, a content...it is not merely negation, in addition is the negation of all that is . I don’t agree : it has a content because you gave it one. It is not the negation (because it gave birth to all that is) but the definition ground, the condition that makes posible everything.

On the other hand, we must to understand that the idea of nothing is something material, is a material state of a material system. Only together it is inteligible. ~ single have not any meaning. Even single, ~ have a content, although not a meaningful (the key) content. On the other hand, we must to understand (I don’t beleive you can make philosophy with this kind of expresion> philosophy is the ground[the nothingness] of possibilities, not of certitudes) that the idea of nothing is something material, is a material state of a material system. Therefore, the idea of nothing does not involve an ideatic nothing. However, we can think somehow at the idea of absolute nothing positive content, but this idea is not content-empty. We can anticipate the idea of absolute nothing, but we cannot arrive to it... My fundamental idea is that there can be no absolute empty-content idea But, the content can come from many sensorial systems, not only from visual system. And, many animals have contents. I think that, that there are animals with better senses than humans... That is, why mental opertations/processings/computations are very important. As was argued by Quartz and Sejnowsky in The neural basis of cognitive development , evolution of cognition lead to a more flexible capacity of forming free representation...but, as they argue, development also involve an increase of the complexity of representations...not a reduction to nothing... Therefore, a depeer understanding of everithing involve more logical/scientific/rational coerence of all that is from bothom to top.

Nothing cannot increase the inteligibility. I fear that idea of nothing is a sterile one. Metaphysics=chemistry. Metachemistry=biology. Over there idea of nothing About the relation between any posible mind and human brain 1.Human brain is a concretmaterialisation of an ontologically posible system. 2.The set of all the posible systems depend on the properties of ontological primitive/primitives, on their numerical quantity, on the transcontextual conditions and on the specific contextual conditions. 2* The relations are determined by the nature of relates and by other contextual parameters. 3. An ontologically posible mind is not a product of human brain, but it is a human discovery. 4. The posible minds, the properties of ontologicall primitive/primitives, the laws of universe, are not products of human mind;their existence is not conditionated by humans; humans cannot exist if they would not exist(humans discover only what is related to their existence>it is imposible to even imagine how much more [or who knows, less]there would be; they had existed before the life apparition and can to exist if life would no longer exist. 5. The posibility of human brain is implicated by the properties of ontological primitive/primitives, by their sufficient quantity and by some specific contextual conditions. 6. What is physically posible do not depend at all on the imagination of brain, but only on the universal and local physical constraints. 7. Implementation of a certain ontologically posible mind may be not independent of human brain, but what is ontologically posible in every context in space and time will never depend on human brain. 8. Question: What is the necessary level of universe? Is there something indestructible in the Universe?

We can to conceive the whole space being empty. But, we cannot to imagine something aspatial.> it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist 9. Is there something more primitive than the empty space in universe? 10. Is there something that would/can affect the space itself? Ok, I understood that you are a totaly materialist guy but I don’t think that you can be able to have anything to do with philosophy if you don’t take the ideal dimension in consideration. You are a half-philosopher. As a kind of conclusion Neither science nor animal cognition, evolutionarily speaking, do not begin with the nothing-content, but with some content, at least a sensorial content. I guess i beleive that nothingness has to do with existence rather than to cognition, it is a state of being, which you will experiment. I have an advice for all thinkers, especially for me > don’t think any more of the (absolute) NOTHINGNESS because you will have time (even infinite) to do so in which you just might regret the time spent now doing it. We do not start from nothing-content, but we anticipate this idea starting from some content. More than simplicity we want inteligibility, and this involve not only isolates primitives, but also relations, structures, processes etc. We should to arrive not to the idea of nothing, but to the coerence of the whole existence...to the understanding of all that is why, does it really help?. And this is not thanks to the idea of nothing. Humans and the whole existence will never participate toward idea of nothing. ok Neither are we started, nor we should to arrive at the idea of nothing. We should to arrive at the understandig of all that is, all that was, all that will be and finally to understanding all that can be(nothingness absolute) and all that cannot be; to an ultimate but coerent understanding of all ...and to the discovery of those posibities that will make (we)us happy. Not to nothing. Neither simplicity nor economy is our ultimate and necessary scientific and philosophical aim. By science we want primarly understanding and

secondly happiness. The lather involve extension of life quantity and quality. The lather involve justice& love&peace&freedom&power and maybe others.