Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

You Can't Have Something Without Nothing

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 2:51:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is the common mantra that from nothing comes nothing. On the contrary, you can't have something without nothing.

You can't draw a painting without a blank canvas.
You can't play a song without silence.

You can't see where one thing begins and where it ends without empty space, without nothingness.

"Without space, you couldn't have anything solid."
-- Alan Watts
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 12:12:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:20:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
I feel it's very reminiscent of Heidegger's metaphysics and his thoughts on science.

How so? I'm a fan of Heidegger's so I'm curious as to how he parallels Watts. I'm only familiar with Heidegger on his works concerning Being and transmetaphysics.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 12:31:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hey, that guy knows what he's talking about! I'll have to look up more of his stuff when I have a free bit of time.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:02:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 12:31:01 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Hey, that guy knows what he's talking about! I'll have to look up more of his stuff when I have a free bit of time.

Yes, yes you absolutely do.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 5:00:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He is talking about space, and backgrounds, not nothing (what a rock dreams about). So this doesn't really have anything to do with the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit...If that wasn't the intention, then carry on.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 7:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 5:00:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
He is talking about space, and backgrounds, not nothing (what a rock dreams about). So this doesn't really have anything to do with the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit...If that wasn't the intention, then carry on.

That's what I thought as well. Ex nihilo nihil fit simply states what it states, and it's true. That which is nothing can not produce anything other than that which is nothing. I can see how this video ties to dualism in that to have existence one thing must contrast with the lack of that thing. But that's not really the point of ex nihilo nihil fit. That's talking about that which is nothing in and of itself, not the contrast of a given object and the lack of that said object.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 10:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is the common mantra that from nothing comes nothing. On the contrary, you can't have something without nothing.

The Fool: I think it more than a mantra nothing is not a thing at all by law of non-contradiction, so there exist nothing to come from.
0->0 0=/=1

The Fool says: Just to kick it of all we need so is flip the negatives to positive and the positives to negative on this statement to expose it.
You Can't Have Something without Nothing
Aka: you can have nothing with something thing.
The Fool says: Ewwwww!

Space is a property; it is properties that make the difference between something and nothing. Physical space has 3 spatial Dimensions.

If space was nothingness we could not even demarcate it as space, there would be nothing to refer too, and we couldn't have coordinates.
Most importantly things would not be able to take it up not take it up.

Moreover if space was nothing, then it wouldn't matter if two things occupied the same space, but it is impossible because it would be a Contradiction of the property of space.

If space was nothingness, then if I take away space then nothing should matter right? Try to picture an elephant but not in space, it's just not happening. But not all things are in space, for we all have emotions, we all know the feeling of happiness or sadness. They do not exist in space.

Therefore space does not encompass all things, Thus if it can be somewhere and not in another, it exist as a thing in itself.

He is confusing recognition with reality, for we can only recognized something in comparison to a back ground (another something), so if this is case what will we see of the LAST BACKROUND? <(80)

Black is not even nothing, we have light receptors in our eyes called Rods(as appose to the cones(colour)) the give us the perception of black when our human eyes are not picking the right part of the electromagnetic, spectrum.
Straight from Hill!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 12:12:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/30/2012 3:20:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
I feel it's very reminiscent of Heidegger's metaphysics and his thoughts on science.

How so? I'm a fan of Heidegger's so I'm curious as to how he parallels Watts. I'm only familiar with Heidegger on his works concerning Being and transmetaphysics.

Heidegger argues, in "What is Metaphysics" that "nothing" cannot be considered some syntactically meaningless word that can only generate semantic quibbles. Science often treats the nothing with this sort of disregard in that, Heidegger explains, science 'is concerned with beings -- and nothing else.' In other words, science is a total negation of the nothing, science is concerned with beings and 'not nothing'.

However, Heidegger points out that this bespeaks a certain kind of 'matter' of the nothing. As negation is an act of the intellect, and in the negation of the nothing nothing "...falls as a particular kind of negated matter."; when you negate, you are negating something. If not, then wouldn't the negation of nothing be a kind of lack of negation?

What this does for Heidegger, is it raises the question on what is prior: negation, or the nothing? Heidegger asserts that the nothing is prior to negation.