Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Because nothing exists, nothing also does not exist.
If you look at nothing as the opposite of something. The existence of one requires the existence of the other.
But since one explicitly says it is nothing i.e. does not exist. That should also mean that something also does not exists. Or nothing exists.
Is there a known solution to this paradox?
To expand upon Mauro's excellent response: "Nothing" isn't a name of a thing that doesn't exist. Words like "nothing" "something" "everything" "most things" and so on don't refer to objects the way that proper names like "Shane" do. Rather these words, called quantifiers, show how many objects are being referred to by other expressions. So "nothing exists" doesn't mean "the object which is nothing has the property of existing", rather it says that the number of the things that have the property of existing is 0.
That resolves the paradox you mention above.
Think of it as the lack of "something". Nothingness cannot be because we know there is "something", we are that "something". Nothingness is the lack of "something", but again because there is "something", there cannot be "nothing". "Nothing" and "something" are not two separate tangible concepts, the concept of "nothing" is the absence of "something". The same thing applies to things like light. There isn't dark and light, dark is just the absence of light.
A paradox is a mental autodestructive or self-negative construct.
Natural (physical) entities are not autodestructive. But our mind allows that: mental entities could negate itselves. As soon as you construct a paradox, it's supposed to negate its existence or contradict itself. There's no solution to paradoxes. They're just fun to play with as mental experiments.
Think of this similar construct: is washing zero hands the same as not washing two hands? If you follow the same logic as in the original question of yours, you can end up concluding that washing=not washing, or even that infinity=2.
Because nothing exists, nothing also does not exist.
In physics especially astrophysics- 'nothing' exists...the example is 'dark matter'. The scientific workers do not get anything in the space between stellar objects. However, the presence is felt by the theoretical calculations..and its name is 'dark matter' as when one observes there is 'nothing' to be found.
So, the corollary that nothing' does not exist may not be true.
This type of situation has come earlier also - say before the discovery of 'positron' particle -which is anti-particle of an electron. The theoretical evidence was there but its detection had not taken place.
If you look at nothing as the opposite of something. The existence of one requires the existence of the other.
the above is true.
But since one explicitly says it is nothing i.e. does not exist. That should also mean that something also does not exists. Or nothing exists.
the above paradox is not there at least in physical sciences.
If nothing exists, that means there has to be something so nothing can exist; e.g., if l cannot see around a corner, does that mean nothing is there even though l know it is there?
So this means that l know it is there, but l cannot prove it until l see it. So if l stand on the corner, l can see where l was and where l could go; so where is the corner?
