Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something rather than nothing

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 12:49:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Martin Heidegger posed the question of why there is something rather than nothing and I find it quite impossible to answer.

Thoughts? Theories?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 3:59:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:49:55 PM, phantom wrote:
Martin Heidegger posed the question of why there is something rather than nothing and I find it quite impossible to answer.

Thoughts? Theories?

I'm fully aware of the long history of what science accomplished after it had been said they would never be able to, but this just might be the only question it's safe to say science will never answer. I've seen attempts, zero energy universe, and some statistical multiverse things, but they were all pretty lame and unconvincing.

For science to answer a why question they need to provide a causal process and you pretty much have to start with nothing and arrive at something, I think the answer has to be a first cause argument and I don't think you can provide an answer regarding a first cause because there can be no prior state upon which to apply any causal principle. If nothing exists, then there's no time and space for any process to occur in, and no principles to apply either. As they say in West Virginia, "Nope, ya jus caint get there from here".

I think the best we will ever do is say it's self evident that something does exist, I don't think determining "why" is possible.

There, I've gone and said it, now I suppose we can count on a breakthrough announcement in the nest issue of the Nature journal.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 4:18:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm officially tired of seeing this thread over and over and over again.

Especially when my answer is never addressed.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:07:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 4:18:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm officially tired of seeing this thread over and over and over again.

Especially when my answer is never addressed.

I can't even recall seeing a thread about it before. Maybe because I didn't really care for philosophy till earlier this year. What was your answer?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:07:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 5:01:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Something" is necessary. That is why.

Why is something necessary?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:19:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:07:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/26/2012 5:01:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Something" is necessary. That is why.

Why is something necessary?

That is easy to answer. If ex nihilo nihil fit is true, then "something" cannot come from "nothing", and we observe "something", thus it has to be necessary. This is because if "something" was contingent, that would mean "something" necessarily came from "nothing", and ex nihilo nihil fit would be false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:23:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because you can imagine the concept of "nothing" or "non-being" doesn't mean it has any relevance to objective reality. Something always existed, and will always exist. This is the very nature of reality itself.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:25:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:49:55 PM, phantom wrote:
Martin Heidegger posed the question of why there is something rather than nothing and I find it quite impossible to answer.

Thoughts? Theories?

Well, to take a Kantian route, the only way that the question can be asked and answered is via consciousness, and consciousness cannot exist if nothing exists.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:33:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:07:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/26/2012 5:01:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Something" is necessary. That is why.

Why is something necessary?

That is easy to answer. If ex nihilo nihil fit is true, then "something" cannot come from "nothing", and we observe "something", thus it has to be necessary. This is because if "something" was contingent, that would mean "something" necessarily came from "nothing", and ex nihilo nihil fit would be false.

That doesn't prove it's necessary. You're assuming that if it was contingent it would come from nothing at a certain point whereas it could have existed for eternity, or since before time, if time had a beginning. Moreover that wouldn't really explain the question. Even if we accept your argument, it base's off the premise that something exists therefore something is necessary. It assumes the existence of something in the argument and certain laws like "out of nothing comes nothing." Why does something, which includes those physical laws, exist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:37:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:33:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:07:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/26/2012 5:01:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Something" is necessary. That is why.

Why is something necessary?

That is easy to answer. If ex nihilo nihil fit is true, then "something" cannot come from "nothing", and we observe "something", thus it has to be necessary. This is because if "something" was contingent, that would mean "something" necessarily came from "nothing", and ex nihilo nihil fit would be false.

That doesn't prove it's necessary. You're assuming that if it was contingent it would come from nothing at a certain point whereas it could have existed for eternity, or since before time, if time had a beginning. Moreover that wouldn't really explain the question.

Of course it would. If something is necessary, then it is useless to ask why it is the way it is, because it couldn't be another way. If ex nihilo nihil fit is true, then we can logically say that "something" is necessarily existing.

Even if we accept your argument, it base's off the premise that something exists therefore something is necessary. It assumes the existence of something in the argument and certain laws like "out of nothing comes nothing." Why does something, which includes those physical laws, exist.

This makes no sense. If "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, this means "something" is necessary and there could never be anything else but "something" because it couldn't have come from "nothing". Case closed.
CarlosMarti123
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:42:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
That is easy to answer. If ex nihilo nihil fit is true, then "something" cannot come from "nothing", and we observe "something", thus it has to be necessary.

Necessary in what way? Certainly not modally necessary?

At 8/26/2012 6:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This is because if "something" was contingent, that would mean "something" necessarily came from "nothing", and ex nihilo nihil fit would be false.

Not necessarily (no pun intended). Contingency does not entail a beginning to existence. Something is contingent if it exists in some possible worlds but fails to exist in others. One could, theoretically speaking, have an object that exists (but does not begin to exist) in some possible worlds but not in others. Such an object would be contingent but not come from nothing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:43:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If "something" is contingent, then you have to say that ex nihilo nihil fit is false. There is no in between "something" and "nothing". Either "nothing" exists necessarily, or "something"exists necessarily, because "something" cannot make a transition from "nothing". Since we observe "something", we know that it had to be this way.
CarlosMarti123
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:46:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:43:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "something" is contingent, then you have to say that ex nihilo nihil fit is false. There is no in between "something" and "nothing". Either "nothing" exists necessarily, or "something"exists necessarily, because "something" cannot make a transition from "nothing". Since we observe "something", we know that it had to be this way.

Why is the proposition "There are some possible worlds where nothing exists, and some possible worlds where something exists" false? Something does not need to 'make a transition' from nothing. Such a thing could exist without having had a beginning to its existence (and, of course, fail to exist in other possible worlds).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:47:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:42:45 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
That is easy to answer. If ex nihilo nihil fit is true, then "something" cannot come from "nothing", and we observe "something", thus it has to be necessary.

Necessary in what way? Certainly not modally necessary?

No. Metaphysically necessary.


At 8/26/2012 6:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This is because if "something" was contingent, that would mean "something" necessarily came from "nothing", and ex nihilo nihil fit would be false.

Not necessarily (no pun intended).

lol

Contingency does not entail a beginning to existence. Something is contingent if it exists in some possible worlds but fails to exist in others. One could, theoretically speaking, have an object that exists (but does not begin to exist) in some possible worlds but not in others. Such an object would be contingent but not come from nothing.

This is not what I mean. I mean that due to the fact that "something" cannot come from "nothing" (metaphysical a priori), and "something" exists, then something is metaphysically necessary. It's not a hard concept to grasp. We can imagine a possible world where nothing existed, but that doesn't mean it ever was objectively, and actually possible. In realty, we observe "something", so it couldn't have been any other way if ex nihilo nihil fit is true. I think it's a pretty solid argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:46:23 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:43:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "something" is contingent, then you have to say that ex nihilo nihil fit is false. There is no in between "something" and "nothing". Either "nothing" exists necessarily, or "something"exists necessarily, because "something" cannot make a transition from "nothing". Since we observe "something", we know that it had to be this way.

Why is the proposition "There are some possible worlds where nothing exists, and some possible worlds where something exists" false? Something does not need to 'make a transition' from nothing. Such a thing could exist without having had a beginning to its existence (and, of course, fail to exist in other possible worlds).

Who cares about the possible worlds concept? I'm talking about objective reality. If "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exist, then "something" has to be the default state of reality metaphysically.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually, as far as modal logic is concerned, if ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysically necessary principle, then logically, "something" has to be metaphysically necessary. This is because we obviously observe "something". If a thing that is metaphysically impossible, exists in no possible world, then there is no possible world where "nothing" exists.
CarlosMarti123
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:08:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:46:23 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
Why is the proposition "There are some possible worlds where nothing exists, and some possible worlds where something exists" false? Something does not need to 'make a transition' from nothing. Such a thing could exist without having had a beginning to its existence (and, of course, fail to exist in other possible worlds).
Who cares about the possible worlds concept? I'm talking about objective reality.

Apparently you do, since you talked about contingency, and a contingent state of affairs is one that holds in some possible worlds and fails to hold in others. And what about 'objective reality'?

At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exist, then "something" has to be the default state of reality metaphysically.

That is a false implication. It is perfectly possible for something to exist, be contingent (i.e. not exist in every possible state of affairs), and not have come from nothing.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Actually, as far as modal logic is concerned, if ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysically necessary principle, then logically, "something" has to be metaphysically necessary. This is because we obviously observe "something".

An empty world containing nothing would neither violate the ex nihilo principle nor be metaphysically necessary.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a thing that is metaphysically impossible, exists in no possible world, then there is no possible world where "nothing" exists.

What?

The antecedent of your implication seems to be a tautology, since something impossible exists in no possible worlds, but I don't see how that entails that nothing exists in no possible worlds, unless you are assuming that nothing is metaphysically impossible.
CarlosMarti123
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:13:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
PS.: I actually agree with you if you're referring to broadly logically possible worlds when you say there is no possible world that contains nothing, though not for the same reasons you have suggested. I assumed you were referring to strictly logically possible worlds at first.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 7:08:54 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:46:23 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
Why is the proposition "There are some possible worlds where nothing exists, and some possible worlds where something exists" false? Something does not need to 'make a transition' from nothing. Such a thing could exist without having had a beginning to its existence (and, of course, fail to exist in other possible worlds).
Who cares about the possible worlds concept? I'm talking about objective reality.

Apparently you do, since you talked about contingency, and a contingent state of affairs is one that holds in some possible worlds and fails to hold in others. And what about 'objective reality'?

At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exist, then "something" has to be the default state of reality metaphysically.

That is a false implication. It is perfectly possible for something to exist, be contingent (i.e. not exist in every possible state of affairs), and not have come from nothing.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Actually, as far as modal logic is concerned, if ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysically necessary principle, then logically, "something" has to be metaphysically necessary. This is because we obviously observe "something".

An empty world containing nothing would neither violate the ex nihilo principle nor be metaphysically necessary.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a thing that is metaphysically impossible, exists in no possible world, then there is no possible world where "nothing" exists.

What?

The antecedent of your implication seems to be a tautology, since something impossible exists in no possible worlds, but I don't see how that entails that nothing exists in no possible worlds, unless you are assuming that nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Both of you miss the point of what I'm saying. If it is true that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, then "something" must be the default state of the actual world, and objective realit. To ask why there is "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't make much sense to me, there couldn't have ever been "nothing" if ex nihilo nihil fit is true.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:23:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If something is contingent, then it can only be contingent to one thing, nothing. But if something cannot come from nothing, then something has to be the default state of existence. There is no way around this.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:33:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:49:55 PM, phantom wrote:
Martin Heidegger posed the question of why there is something rather than nothing and I find it quite impossible to answer.

Thoughts? Theories?

Don't know, you can't explain that, therefore God.

Your welcome.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:47:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 7:18:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:08:54 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:46:23 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
Why is the proposition "There are some possible worlds where nothing exists, and some possible worlds where something exists" false? Something does not need to 'make a transition' from nothing. Such a thing could exist without having had a beginning to its existence (and, of course, fail to exist in other possible worlds).
Who cares about the possible worlds concept? I'm talking about objective reality.

Apparently you do, since you talked about contingency, and a contingent state of affairs is one that holds in some possible worlds and fails to hold in others. And what about 'objective reality'?

At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exist, then "something" has to be the default state of reality metaphysically.

That is a false implication. It is perfectly possible for something to exist, be contingent (i.e. not exist in every possible state of affairs), and not have come from nothing.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Actually, as far as modal logic is concerned, if ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysically necessary principle, then logically, "something" has to be metaphysically necessary. This is because we obviously observe "something".

An empty world containing nothing would neither violate the ex nihilo principle nor be metaphysically necessary.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a thing that is metaphysically impossible, exists in no possible world, then there is no possible world where "nothing" exists.

What?

The antecedent of your implication seems to be a tautology, since something impossible exists in no possible worlds, but I don't see how that entails that nothing exists in no possible worlds, unless you are assuming that nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Both of you miss the point of what I'm saying. If it is true that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, then "something" must be the default state of the actual world, and objective reality.

I think you are missing their point. To establish necessity philosophically, you need to demonstrate that it instantiates a law of logic such that it must be true in all possible words, and you haven't done so. Ex nihilo nihil fit only states that something couldn't have come from nothing, it does nothing to prove that something was logically necessary. If you flip a coin and it lands heads, you can't just say it is heads by necessity because it happens to have been heads, it could have been tails.

To ask why there is "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't make much sense to me, there couldn't have ever been "nothing" if ex nihilo nihil fit is true.

But that is the question you are answering, the answer can't just unask the question. You seem to be arguing that the state of affairs just is, and therefore it is the state of affairs by necessity, that doesn't logically follow. You need to show that it could not have been otherwise.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:04:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 7:47:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:18:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:08:54 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:46:23 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
Why is the proposition "There are some possible worlds where nothing exists, and some possible worlds where something exists" false? Something does not need to 'make a transition' from nothing. Such a thing could exist without having had a beginning to its existence (and, of course, fail to exist in other possible worlds).
Who cares about the possible worlds concept? I'm talking about objective reality.

Apparently you do, since you talked about contingency, and a contingent state of affairs is one that holds in some possible worlds and fails to hold in others. And what about 'objective reality'?

At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exist, then "something" has to be the default state of reality metaphysically.

That is a false implication. It is perfectly possible for something to exist, be contingent (i.e. not exist in every possible state of affairs), and not have come from nothing.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Actually, as far as modal logic is concerned, if ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysically necessary principle, then logically, "something" has to be metaphysically necessary. This is because we obviously observe "something".

An empty world containing nothing would neither violate the ex nihilo principle nor be metaphysically necessary.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a thing that is metaphysically impossible, exists in no possible world, then there is no possible world where "nothing" exists.

What?

The antecedent of your implication seems to be a tautology, since something impossible exists in no possible worlds, but I don't see how that entails that nothing exists in no possible worlds, unless you are assuming that nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Both of you miss the point of what I'm saying. If it is true that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, then "something" must be the default state of the actual world, and objective reality.

I think you are missing their point. To establish necessity philosophically, you need to demonstrate that it instantiates a law of logic such that it must be true in all possible words, and you haven't done so. Ex nihilo nihil fit only states that something couldn't have come from nothing, it does nothing to prove that something was logically necessary. If you flip a coin and it lands heads, you can't just say it is heads by necessity because it happens to have been heads, it could have been tails.

To ask why there is "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't make much sense to me, there couldn't have ever been "nothing" if ex nihilo nihil fit is true.

But that is the question you are answering, the answer can't just unask the question. You seem to be arguing that the state of affairs just is, and therefore it is the state of affairs by necessity, that doesn't logically follow. You need to show that it could not have been otherwise.

That has nothing to do with my point. Asking why there is something rather than nothing is useless. There could only be something, because something cannot come from nothing, and we observe something, meaning, it couldn't have been another way.

Are you saying, you believe something can come from nothing?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 7:47:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:18:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:08:54 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 6:46:23 PM, CarlosMarti123 wrote:
Why is the proposition "There are some possible worlds where nothing exists, and some possible worlds where something exists" false? Something does not need to 'make a transition' from nothing. Such a thing could exist without having had a beginning to its existence (and, of course, fail to exist in other possible worlds).
Who cares about the possible worlds concept? I'm talking about objective reality.

Apparently you do, since you talked about contingency, and a contingent state of affairs is one that holds in some possible worlds and fails to hold in others. And what about 'objective reality'?

At 8/26/2012 6:49:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exist, then "something" has to be the default state of reality metaphysically.

That is a false implication. It is perfectly possible for something to exist, be contingent (i.e. not exist in every possible state of affairs), and not have come from nothing.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Actually, as far as modal logic is concerned, if ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysically necessary principle, then logically, "something" has to be metaphysically necessary. This is because we obviously observe "something".

An empty world containing nothing would neither violate the ex nihilo principle nor be metaphysically necessary.

At 8/26/2012 6:55:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a thing that is metaphysically impossible, exists in no possible world, then there is no possible world where "nothing" exists.

What?

The antecedent of your implication seems to be a tautology, since something impossible exists in no possible worlds, but I don't see how that entails that nothing exists in no possible worlds, unless you are assuming that nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Both of you miss the point of what I'm saying. If it is true that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, then "something" must be the default state of the actual world, and objective reality.

I think you are missing their point. To establish necessity philosophically, you need to demonstrate that it instantiates a law of logic such that it must be true in all possible words, and you haven't done so. Ex nihilo nihil fit only states that something couldn't have come from nothing, it does nothing to prove that something was logically necessary. If you flip a coin and it lands heads, you can't just say it is heads by necessity because it happens to have been heads, it could have been tails.

To ask why there is "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't make much sense to me, there couldn't have ever been "nothing" if ex nihilo nihil fit is true.

But that is the question you are answering, the answer can't just unask the question. You seem to be arguing that the state of affairs just is, and therefore it is the state of affairs by necessity, that doesn't logically follow. You need to show that it could not have been otherwise.

I never said "something" is logically necessary. It's physically/metaphysically necessary with regards to the actual world, because there is "something", and it couldn't have come from "nothing". Get it?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:15:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:04:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:47:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Both of you miss the point of what I'm saying. If it is true that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, then "something" must be the default state of the actual world, and objective reality.

I think you are missing their point. To establish necessity philosophically, you need to demonstrate that it instantiates a law of logic such that it must be true in all possible words, and you haven't done so. Ex nihilo nihil fit only states that something couldn't have come from nothing, it does nothing to prove that something was logically necessary. If you flip a coin and it lands heads, you can't just say it is heads by necessity because it happens to have been heads, it could have been tails.

To ask why there is "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't make much sense to me, there couldn't have ever been "nothing" if ex nihilo nihil fit is true.

But that is the question you are answering, the answer can't just unask the question. You seem to be arguing that the state of affairs just is, and therefore it is the state of affairs by necessity, that doesn't logically follow. You need to show that it could not have been otherwise.

That has nothing to do with my point. Asking why there is something rather than nothing is useless. There could only be something, because something cannot come from nothing, and we observe something, meaning, it couldn't have been another way.

Are you saying, you believe something can come from nothing?

No, I'm saying that this truism doesn't establish the logical necessity of something existing.

Are you sayingnthat if you flip a coin and it comes up heads, that it was heads necessarily, and tails could not have come up?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:15:51 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/26/2012 8:04:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:47:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Both of you miss the point of what I'm saying. If it is true that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, then "something" must be the default state of the actual world, and objective reality.

I think you are missing their point. To establish necessity philosophically, you need to demonstrate that it instantiates a law of logic such that it must be true in all possible words, and you haven't done so. Ex nihilo nihil fit only states that something couldn't have come from nothing, it does nothing to prove that something was logically necessary. If you flip a coin and it lands heads, you can't just say it is heads by necessity because it happens to have been heads, it could have been tails.

To ask why there is "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't make much sense to me, there couldn't have ever been "nothing" if ex nihilo nihil fit is true.

But that is the question you are answering, the answer can't just unask the question. You seem to be arguing that the state of affairs just is, and therefore it is the state of affairs by necessity, that doesn't logically follow. You need to show that it could not have been otherwise.

That has nothing to do with my point. Asking why there is something rather than nothing is useless. There could only be something, because something cannot come from nothing, and we observe something, meaning, it couldn't have been another way.

Are you saying, you believe something can come from nothing?

No, I'm saying that this truism doesn't establish the logical necessity of something existing.


I didn't say it was logically necessary. I said it was physically/ metaphysically necessary.

Are you sayingnthat if you flip a coin and it comes up heads, that it was heads necessarily, and tails could not have come up?

What are you going on about? That analogy has nothing to do with my point. Are you saying something can come from nothing? If not, then there had to be something, if not, then you have to say things like something can come from nothing. Are you saying ex nihilo nihil fit being false, is possible?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:15:51 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/26/2012 8:04:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 7:47:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Both of you miss the point of what I'm saying. If it is true that "something" cannot come from "nothing", and "something" exists, then "something" must be the default state of the actual world, and objective reality.

I think you are missing their point. To establish necessity philosophically, you need to demonstrate that it instantiates a law of logic such that it must be true in all possible words, and you haven't done so. Ex nihilo nihil fit only states that something couldn't have come from nothing, it does nothing to prove that something was logically necessary. If you flip a coin and it lands heads, you can't just say it is heads by necessity because it happens to have been heads, it could have been tails.

To ask why there is "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't make much sense to me, there couldn't have ever been "nothing" if ex nihilo nihil fit is true.

But that is the question you are answering, the answer can't just unask the question. You seem to be arguing that the state of affairs just is, and therefore it is the state of affairs by necessity, that doesn't logically follow. You need to show that it could not have been otherwise.

That has nothing to do with my point. Asking why there is something rather than nothing is useless. There could only be something, because something cannot come from nothing, and we observe something, meaning, it couldn't have been another way.

Are you saying, you believe something can come from nothing?

No, I'm saying that this truism doesn't establish the logical necessity of something existing.

Are you sayingnthat if you flip a coin and it comes up heads, that it was heads necessarily, and tails could not have come up?

Basically, I'm saying that if the coin wasn't flipped, and it was was always on heads, then it being on heads is necessary because it couldn't have been another way, it was always on heads!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:55:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:21:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 8:15:51 PM, Sidewalker wrote:


Are you saying, you believe something can come from nothing?

No, I'm saying that this truism doesn't establish the logical necessity of something existing.


I didn't say it was logically necessary. I said it was physically/ metaphysically necessary.

I know it's trendy to say that "It is what it is", but that is not a philosophical statement about necessity.

Are you saying that if you flip a coin and it comes up heads, that it was heads necessarily, and tails could not have come up?

What are you going on about? That analogy has nothing to do with my point.

The analogy has everything to do with your point, you are arguing the fact that we observe something makes it necessarily so, we can observe a heads outcome on a coin toss but that doesn't establish the necessity of heads.

Are you saying something can come from nothing? If not, then there had to be something, if not, then you have to say things like something can come from nothing. Are you saying ex nihilo nihil fit being false, is possible?

Nope, I'm still not saying that, I'm saying that it is not a self evident truth that the necessity of something's existence is a logical consequence of ex nihilo nihil fit, and your simply repeating it again does not make it become true. You have not established the logical connection between your proposition and your conclusion. You have to establish that it could not have been otherwise, you haven't.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:04:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:28:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 8:15:51 PM, Sidewalker wrote:


Are you saying that if you flip a coin and it comes up heads, that it was heads necessarily, and tails could not have come up?

Basically, I'm saying that if the coin wasn't flipped, and it was was always on heads, then it being on heads is necessary because it couldn't have been another way, it was always on heads!

So you are just saying "It is what it is". which is fine, but that doesn't make it the case by necessity. Necessity is a well defined philosophical term, you can't just unask the question, change the refuting analogy, or change the definition of necessity to make your conclusion become true. There needs to be a valid argument and you haven't provided one.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater