Total Posts:163|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is There Something Rather than Nothing

tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.

I think this is a funny kind of play with language that actually highlights an important truth. There are limitations to thought. These questions smack of a kind of absurdity but, in so doing, demonstrate our intellectual limitations, which are worthy of consideration.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 3:59:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.

I think this is a funny kind of play with language that actually highlights an important truth. There are limitations to thought. These questions smack of a kind of absurdity but, in so doing, demonstrate our intellectual limitations, which are worthy of consideration.

A satirical response could be "because if there was nothing, you'd still be complaining."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 7:31:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.

I think this is a funny kind of play with language that actually highlights an important truth. There are limitations to thought. These questions smack of a kind of absurdity but, in so doing, demonstrate our intellectual limitations, which are worthy of consideration.

Does anything actually exist in the way we understand it? There is increasingly good evidence to suggest that the universe has a net energy content of zero, so looking from the outside one could say the universe doesn't have anything of substance.

Could the same sort of principle apply ex nihalo to the underlying principle/substance that allows that to happen?

In which case the universe as a whole really is oblivion, and we're some segregated part of the sum.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 7:50:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.


Then the question just becomes "why is?" The idea that "nothing cannot exist, therefore something has to" evades the question (it presumes existence). In any case, the real answer to the question is that, contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply. The universe i.e. a self-consistent, self-restrictive and self-actualizing potential, timelessly emerges from this background of pure freedom unto itself. So basically, nothing cannot exist because "out of nothing everything comes". However, for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 8:23:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
However , for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

Enlighten me into these logical reasons, and why call it God anymore than 'Gravity' or something of the like.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:23:25 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
However , for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

Enlighten me into these logical reasons, and why call it God anymore than 'Gravity' or something of the like.

I'm debating the topic with Roy sometime soon, you can read my full reasoning there http://www.debate.org....

But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind. When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God. And by "God", I mean an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent omnibenevolent entity, not some watered down pantheist garbage.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 8:58:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:23:25 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
However , for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

Enlighten me into these logical reasons, and why call it God anymore than 'Gravity' or something of the like.

I'm debating the topic with Roy sometime soon, you can read my full reasoning there http://www.debate.org....

But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind. When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God. And by "God", I mean an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent omnibenevolent entity, not some watered down pantheist garbage.

Your profile lists you as a pantheist. I've got the debate followed, hopefully RL accepts, if he doesn't then I would like to take the reins myself if you would be willing to offer :-)
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:01:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:58:07 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:23:25 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
However , for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

Enlighten me into these logical reasons, and why call it God anymore than 'Gravity' or something of the like.

I'm debating the topic with Roy sometime soon, you can read my full reasoning there http://www.debate.org....

But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind. When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God. And by "God", I mean an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent omnibenevolent entity, not some watered down pantheist garbage.

Your profile lists you as a pantheist. I've got the debate followed, hopefully RL accepts, if he doesn't then I would like to take the reins myself if you would be willing to offer :-)

Oh, that's from like over a year ago, back when I was an atheist/pantheist....lol
I should probably update it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:03:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:58:07 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:23:25 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
However , for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

Enlighten me into these logical reasons, and why call it God anymore than 'Gravity' or something of the like.

I'm debating the topic with Roy sometime soon, you can read my full reasoning there http://www.debate.org....

But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind. When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God. And by "God", I mean an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent omnibenevolent entity, not some watered down pantheist garbage.

Your profile lists you as a pantheist. I've got the debate followed, hopefully RL accepts, if he doesn't then I would like to take the reins myself if you would be willing to offer :-)

In the meantime, you can read these two links. They should give you a very good idea of where I'm coming from.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.ctmu.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:21:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind.

1) Prove this fact.
2) Why is it necessarily the case?
3) What does 'self-contained' actually mean outside of the context that you are claiming to be self-contained and how can we rely on internal meaning having external meaning?
4) We can deduce lots of things, particularly when we start working with analogy. That does not mean the analogy is a correct one that will lead us to any form of truth.

When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God.

If we anthropomorphisise the universe then we get an anthropomorphic answer. This is not a surprise, but nor is it useful or indicative of anything other than our tendency to try and make sense of things we do not fully understand in terms that we can better make sense of.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:35:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 9:21:54 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind.

1) Prove this fact.
2) Why is it necessarily the case?
3) What does 'self-contained' actually mean outside of the context that you are claiming to be self-contained and how can we rely on internal meaning having external meaning?
4) We can deduce lots of things, particularly when we start working with analogy. That does not mean the analogy is a correct one that will lead us to any form of truth.

When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God.

If there were something real enough to make it false, it would be part of reality. If there were something real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be part of reality. If the difference between two things is real, then they both reduce to a common reality which contains them both and provides the metric of separation. In this context, self-contained means "closed under causal regression".


If we anthropomorphisise the universe then we get an anthropomorphic answer. This is not a surprise, but nor is it useful or indicative of anything other than our tendency to try and make sense of things we do not fully understand in terms that we can better make sense of.

Trivial observation.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:44:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, drawing arbitrary analogies between things and then announcing that they prove something to be true or even probably is a trivial observation. That was my point.

However, now I've bothered to check who I'm replying to, I think I'll leave it there. I've no desire to watch you run around in circles failing to understand simple concepts again. It got tiresome long ago.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:44:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 9:21:54 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind.

1) Prove this fact.
2) Why is it necessarily the case?
3) What does 'self-contained' actually mean outside of the context that you are claiming to be self-contained and how can we rely on internal meaning having external meaning?
4) We can deduce lots of things, particularly when we start working with analogy. That does not mean the analogy is a correct one that will lead us to any form of truth.

When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God.

If we anthropomorphisise the universe then we get an anthropomorphic answer. This is not a surprise, but nor is it useful or indicative of anything other than our tendency to try and make sense of things we do not fully understand in terms that we can better make sense of.

In other words, self-contained means "providing its own means of existence."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 9:48:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 9:44:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Yes, drawing arbitrary analogies between things and then announcing that they prove something to be true or even probably is a trivial observation. That was my point.

However, now I've bothered to check who I'm replying to, I think I'll leave it there. I've no desire to watch you run around in circles failing to understand simple concepts again. It got tiresome long ago.

The brainless piss ant doesn't want to talk to me. Sad day.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:22:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 7:50:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.


Then the question just becomes "why is?" The idea that "nothing cannot exist, therefore something has to" evades the question (it presumes existence). In any case, the real answer to the question is that, contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply. The universe i.e. a self-consistent, self-restrictive and self-actualizing potential, timelessly emerges from this background of pure freedom unto itself. So basically, nothing cannot exist because "out of nothing everything comes". However, for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

"nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply"

'Nothingness is' followed by any positive statement is a fallacy.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:25:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:22:54 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/24/2014 7:50:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.


Then the question just becomes "why is?" The idea that "nothing cannot exist, therefore something has to" evades the question (it presumes existence). In any case, the real answer to the question is that, contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply. The universe i.e. a self-consistent, self-restrictive and self-actualizing potential, timelessly emerges from this background of pure freedom unto itself. So basically, nothing cannot exist because "out of nothing everything comes". However, for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

"nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply"

'Nothingness is' followed by any positive statement is a fallacy.

If that were true, the phrase "Nothing is nothing" would be a fallacy, thus destroying the logical principle A is A on which the argument is predicated.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:30:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:22:54 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/24/2014 7:50:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.


Then the question just becomes "why is?" The idea that "nothing cannot exist, therefore something has to" evades the question (it presumes existence). In any case, the real answer to the question is that, contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply. The universe i.e. a self-consistent, self-restrictive and self-actualizing potential, timelessly emerges from this background of pure freedom unto itself. So basically, nothing cannot exist because "out of nothing everything comes". However, for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

"nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply"

'Nothingness is' followed by any positive statement is a fallacy.

Really, nothingness CAN be defined as zero constraint. But if you don't like that, we could easily ask the question "what would remain if reality didn't exist" and define nothing as the answer.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2014 2:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

This paper has an interesting take on what I was suggesting, with symmetrical Negating information entities and subsequent desymetrisation bringing the universe we have today.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:44:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 8:35:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 8:23:25 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
However , for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

Enlighten me into these logical reasons, and why call it God anymore than 'Gravity' or something of the like.

I'm debating the topic with Roy sometime soon, you can read my full reasoning there http://www.debate.org....

But essentially, in light of the fact that the universe is necessarily self-contained, we can deduce that it behaves much like a mind. When we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind", the answer turns out to be the mind of God. And by "God", I mean an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent omnibenevolent entity, not some watered down pantheist garbage.

Thomas Nagel is an an atheist philosopher and a supporter of panpsychism. It seems that you take a leap of faith and assume the universe is a mind, while he limits intelligence and consciousness to the nature of the universe itself without having to adopt the assumption that an intelligent mind exists in the universe or is the universe itself. I also can predict that you make another leap of faith in the second premise which would say something along the lines of that mind having godly qualities(when it is reasonable to assume it doesn't have them).
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:58:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:25:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If that were true, the phrase "Nothing is nothing" would be a fallacy, thus destroying the logical principle A is A on which the argument is predicated.

Nothingness (in the sense of absolute emptiness / negation) itself doesn't apply to A is A because it is not an object and therefore there's nothing to self identify but a term. Describing it as a 'lack of constraint' makes it sound like a positive concept, and like there is anything to not be constrained. 'Positive nothingness' is imaginary; this much we can literally deduce from it's definition. Nothingness is not a state of no barriers or rules; it is no state at all.

'Nothing is nothing' as a statement about the world is indeed a fallacy; it says nothing about the world, and the statement 'Nothing is' in the positive sense is inherently senseless. The term describes the absence of a thing, not a metaphysical state or anything else.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:21:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 2:25:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 2:22:54 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/24/2014 7:50:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.


Then the question just becomes "why is?" The idea that "nothing cannot exist, therefore something has to" evades the question (it presumes existence). In any case, the real answer to the question is that, contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply. The universe i.e. a self-consistent, self-restrictive and self-actualizing potential, timelessly emerges from this background of pure freedom unto itself. So basically, nothing cannot exist because "out of nothing everything comes". However, for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

"nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply"

'Nothingness is' followed by any positive statement is a fallacy.

If that were true, the phrase "Nothing is nothing" would be a fallacy, thus destroying the logical principle A is A on which the argument is predicated.

It's fairly amusing to have such false arguments presented with that air of erudition...

'Nothing' is a quantifier signifying absolute negation. That's a statement about it linguistic import which, quite clearly, states that 'that which is nothing' cannot have positive properties, i.e. 'real' properties. 'Nothing is nothing' = 'An imaginary absolute lack of real properties is an imaginary absolute lack of real properties', an expansion which I'm sure makes it easy to see that 'nothing is nothing' is not a statement which attributes positive / real properties to nothing.

"Really, nothingness CAN be defined as zero constraint. But if you don't like that, we could easily ask the question "what would remain if reality didn't exist" and define nothing as the answer"

The idea that reality could not exist is purely imaginary. It's contained within the terms.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 7:00:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Then the question becomes why is it that "nothing cannot be".

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Then the question becomes "Why is there logical necessity rather than nothing?"

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.

That might satisfy the question "Is there something rather than nothing?", but it doesn't speak to "why".

I think this is a funny kind of play with language that actually highlights an important truth. There are limitations to thought. These questions smack of a kind of absurdity but, in so doing, demonstrate our intellectual limitations, which are worthy of consideration.

It is certainly playing with language and yes, there are limitations to thought and our intellectual limitations are worthy of consideration, but I don't really see what insight comes from playing with language. Pondering the original certainly serves to elucidate the limitations of thought, but dismissing the question as if it is answered by playing with words doesn'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
3/25/2014 7:27:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.

I think this is a funny kind of play with language that actually highlights an important truth. There are limitations to thought. These questions smack of a kind of absurdity but, in so doing, demonstrate our intellectual limitations, which are worthy of consideration.

I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's playing with the word "is" regarding his statement that there was nothing going on between he and Monica Lewinsky, for this to have any bearing I'm pretty sure you need to go bomb Iraq now.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true." - Bill Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:24:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 5:58:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 3/24/2014 2:25:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If that were true, the phrase "Nothing is nothing" would be a fallacy, thus destroying the logical principle A is A on which the argument is predicated.

Nothingness (in the sense of absolute emptiness / negation) itself doesn't apply to A is A because it is not an object and therefore there's nothing to self identify but a term. Describing it as a 'lack of constraint' makes it sound like a positive concept, and like there is anything to not be constrained. 'Positive nothingness' is imaginary; this much we can literally deduce from it's definition. Nothingness is not a state of no barriers or rules; it is no state at all.

I see your point, but nothingness is nothingness in the sense that nothingness is not something.

'Nothing is nothing' as a statement about the world is indeed a fallacy; it says nothing about the world, and the statement 'Nothing is' in the positive sense is inherently senseless. The term describes the absence of a thing, not a metaphysical state or anything else.

When I say "nothingness is zero constraint", I am assigning no attributes to nothingness except in relation to existence (from the perspective of existence).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:33:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 6:21:47 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/24/2014 2:25:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 2:22:54 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 3/24/2014 7:50:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/24/2014 1:52:01 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems like the answer is easier than everyone thinks: because nothing cannot be.

Where there is there necessarily is something. To say "there is nothing" is to speak of something, in particular, of something that is, and this contradicts with the "nothing" we supposed we were speaking of. Therefore, by logical necessity, there is something.

Rephrasing doesn't offer an opportunity to escape this resolve. For example: "Why does anything exist" seems like an absurdly trivial question when one reminds oneself that nothing cannot exist. So nothing does not exist. So something does exist. Let's not equivocate either. It doesn't follow that therefore anything can exist, as 1)this is at odds with nothing not existing, and 2) surely the question wasn't asking why anything, like square circles and four sided triangles, exist. Therefore, to say at least something exists is to satisfy the condition posed by the question.


Then the question just becomes "why is?" The idea that "nothing cannot exist, therefore something has to" evades the question (it presumes existence). In any case, the real answer to the question is that, contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply. The universe i.e. a self-consistent, self-restrictive and self-actualizing potential, timelessly emerges from this background of pure freedom unto itself. So basically, nothing cannot exist because "out of nothing everything comes". However, for logical reasons, only one potential can bring itself into existence, and that potential is God.

"nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply"

'Nothingness is' followed by any positive statement is a fallacy.

If that were true, the phrase "Nothing is nothing" would be a fallacy, thus destroying the logical principle A is A on which the argument is predicated.



'Nothing' is a quantifier signifying absolute negation. That's a statement about it linguistic import which, quite clearly, states that 'that which is nothing' cannot have positive properties, i.e. 'real' properties.

It cannot possess them intrinsically, but it can be informationally defined as "zero constraint".
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 10:39:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:24:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
When I say "nothingness is zero constraint", I am assigning no attributes to nothingness except in relation to existence (from the perspective of existence).

"contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply."

Here you're assigning it the existence as a 'realm', and of having 'potential'. Nothingness must be no realm at all; and as for potential, it is imaginary. Only existences can exist, it is nonsense to talk about a potential obtaining existence, since if it exists it is itself an existent, not only a potential.

"Really, nothingness CAN be defined as zero constraint. But if you don't like that, we could easily ask the question "what would remain if reality didn't exist" and define nothing as the answer."

'What would remain' attributes nothing as having a 'what' that could remain. If reality didn't exist, nothing would remain, and that is an entirely imaginary and self-refuting situation since in positing the situation 'reality doesn't exist' the reality of the situation itself is refuted. Hence all you're doing is constructing a self-detonating sentence, which translates to 'nothingness cannot exist in reality'.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 10:51:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This idea that freedom can 'exist' is nonsense, like saying that the number 5 can be envious; it is mixing categories. Freedom is a subjective description for situations that exist, it is not itself an existent thing in the world. You're reversing the definition; just because a 'realm of unbound potential with no constraint' is gibberish and therefore cannot exist, does not mean that it's the definition of nothingness, nor that reality is on one side of a dichotomy where the other is everything that doesn't exist somehow existing.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:26:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:39:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:24:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
When I say "nothingness is zero constraint", I am assigning no attributes to nothingness except in relation to existence (from the perspective of existence).

"contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply."

Here you're assigning it the existence as a 'realm', and of having 'potential'. Nothingness must be no realm at all; and as for potential, it is imaginary. Only existences can exist, it is nonsense to talk about a potential obtaining existence, since if it exists it is itself an existent, not only a potential.

The potentials have no existence outside of their intrinsic actualization (or self-defeat). It's quite an abstract concept to grasp, but nothingness is asymmetric in the sense that there is nothing to stop it from being not nothing. Any argument to the contrary would require that nothingness be something. The realm I referred to is something which is necessarily present wherever nothing is, so to speak. I realize that my use of language often casts nothingness as "something", but it's the only way to discuss it, and doesn't ever require that nothingness possess real attributes. Any argument to the effect that "nothingness cannot be discussed or defined" is self-refuting, because it only the flip side of the same coin, and cannot answer the necessary question "WHAT can't be discussed or defined? without being contradictory".
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:47:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 11:26:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:39:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:24:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
When I say "nothingness is zero constraint", I am assigning no attributes to nothingness except in relation to existence (from the perspective of existence).

"contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply."

Here you're assigning it the existence as a 'realm', and of having 'potential'. Nothingness must be no realm at all; and as for potential, it is imaginary. Only existences can exist, it is nonsense to talk about a potential obtaining existence, since if it exists it is itself an existent, not only a potential.


The potentials have no existence outside of their intrinsic actualization (or self-defeat).

Intrinsic actualization? The only actualization is what occurs; the potential is an imaginary concept. Therefore there is no 'realm of potentials' unless you're ascribing that name to some group of concepts in the mind.

It's quite an abstract concept to grasp, but nothingness is asymmetric in the sense that there is nothing to stop it from being not nothing. Any argument to the contrary would require that nothingness be something.

There is nothing to stop nothingness from being not nothing? Yes there is; the definition of the word. It cannot 'be' anything. What you're talking about is pointing at something and calling it nothing, i.e. violating A is A.

The realm I referred to is something which is necessarily present wherever nothing is, so to speak. I realize that my use of language often casts nothingness as "something", but it's the only way to discuss it, and doesn't ever require that nothingness possess real attributes. Any argument to the effect that "nothingness cannot be discussed or defined" is self-refuting, because it only the flip side of the same coin, and cannot answer the necessary question "WHAT can't be discussed or defined? without being contradictory".

I am not saying that, I'm saying that gaps or nothingnesses are imaginary and don't exist in the world.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:54:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 11:47:15 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:26:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:39:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 3/25/2014 8:24:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
When I say "nothingness is zero constraint", I am assigning no attributes to nothingness except in relation to existence (from the perspective of existence).

"contrary to popular belief, nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...a realm of unbound potential in which the laws of logic simply do not apply."

Here you're assigning it the existence as a 'realm', and of having 'potential'. Nothingness must be no realm at all; and as for potential, it is imaginary. Only existences can exist, it is nonsense to talk about a potential obtaining existence, since if it exists it is itself an existent, not only a potential.


The potentials have no existence outside of their intrinsic actualization (or self-defeat).

Intrinsic actualization? The only actualization is what occurs; the potential is an imaginary concept. Therefore there is no 'realm of potentials' unless you're ascribing that name to some group of concepts in the mind.

The potentials are in a sense defined on their actualization (or self-defeat). That is, every actualization is the actualization of its potential, and every potential is the potential of its actualization.


It's quite an abstract concept to grasp, but nothingness is asymmetric in the sense that there is nothing to stop it from being not nothing. Any argument to the contrary would require that nothingness be something.

There is nothing to stop nothingness from being not nothing? Yes there is; the definition of the word. It cannot 'be' anything. What you're talking about is pointing at something and calling it nothing, i.e. violating A is A.

That's a constraint which nothingness simply cannot afford.


The realm I referred to is something which is necessarily present wherever nothing is, so to speak. I realize that my use of language often casts nothingness as "something", but it's the only way to discuss it, and doesn't ever require that nothingness possess real attributes. Any argument to the effect that "nothingness cannot be discussed or defined" is self-refuting, because it only the flip side of the same coin, and cannot answer the necessary question "WHAT can't be discussed or defined? without being contradictory".

I am not saying that, I'm saying that gaps or nothingnesses are imaginary and don't exist in the world.

Of course they don't exist, but they can be defined to be something (so long as that something is informationally defined to be zero constraint).