Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How stable is nothing ?

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?
"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
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 12:12:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?
So nothing can be described, have adjectives that apply, etc..? Smoke less pot , just a suggestion.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 12:13:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 12:12:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?
So nothing can be described, have adjectives that apply, etc..? Smoke less pot , just a suggestion.

Nothing is defined as the absence of something.
"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
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 12:23:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 12:13:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:12:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?
So nothing can be described, have adjectives that apply, etc..? Smoke less pot , just a suggestion.

Nothing is defined as the absence of something.
Actually it's the absence of everything or anything not particularly just something, jk, Including modifiers because there is "nothing" to modify.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 12:29:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?

That kind of reasoning is patently illogical as long as you maintain a clear and accurate conception of what "nothing" means.

The rigid syntactical categories of our language has at times obstructed our understanding of certain concepts. In this case, because we nounify our objects without exception, we've developed a tendency to objectify our nouns. Essentially, you are treating 'nothing' as an object - a species of 'something' - and that results in a definitional contradiction.

'Nothing' is not a thing, a state, or a characteristic -- it is an abstraction designed to give name to the absence of those things. As such it can't change and can't have properties -- concepts like stability and instability simply don't apply.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:15:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 12:29:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?

That kind of reasoning is patently illogical as long as you maintain a clear and accurate conception of what "nothing" means.

The rigid syntactical categories of our language has at times obstructed our understanding of certain concepts. In this case, because we nounify our objects without exception, we've developed a tendency to objectify our nouns. Essentially, you are treating 'nothing' as an object - a species of 'something' - and that results in a definitional contradiction.

'Nothing' is not a thing, a state, or a characteristic -- it is an abstraction designed to give name to the absence of those things. As such it can't change and can't have properties -- concepts like stability and instability simply don't apply.

I think we can talk about a hypothetical state where no things exist.

That doesn't seem to be illogical.
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:24:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 1:15:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:29:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?

That kind of reasoning is patently illogical as long as you maintain a clear and accurate conception of what "nothing" means.

The rigid syntactical categories of our language has at times obstructed our understanding of certain concepts. In this case, because we nounify our objects without exception, we've developed a tendency to objectify our nouns. Essentially, you are treating 'nothing' as an object - a species of 'something' - and that results in a definitional contradiction.

'Nothing' is not a thing, a state, or a characteristic -- it is an abstraction designed to give name to the absence of those things. As such it can't change and can't have properties -- concepts like stability and instability simply don't apply.

I think we can talk about a hypothetical state where no things exist.

That doesn't seem to be illogical.

The faculties of the human mind are severely limited. In most cases, we understand subtle abstract concepts by reifying them through physical approximations. I'm sure what you conceive as a 'state of nothing' is just dark, empty, space ... which is self-evidently not nothing. Nothing is fundamentally inconceivable, and is simply defined in abstract -- a postulated antithesis of the 'something' we're familiar with.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:29:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
That is to say, invoking the language of "hypothetical state" in reference to nothing, already evinces the imaginative limitations just described.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:31:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 1:24:34 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:15:06 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:29:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?

That kind of reasoning is patently illogical as long as you maintain a clear and accurate conception of what "nothing" means.

The rigid syntactical categories of our language has at times obstructed our understanding of certain concepts. In this case, because we nounify our objects without exception, we've developed a tendency to objectify our nouns. Essentially, you are treating 'nothing' as an object - a species of 'something' - and that results in a definitional contradiction.

'Nothing' is not a thing, a state, or a characteristic -- it is an abstraction designed to give name to the absence of those things. As such it can't change and can't have properties -- concepts like stability and instability simply don't apply.

I think we can talk about a hypothetical state where no things exist.

That doesn't seem to be illogical.

The faculties of the human mind are severely limited. In most cases, we understand subtle abstract concepts by reifying them through physical approximations. I'm sure what you conceive as a 'state of nothing' is just dark, empty, space ... which is self-evidently not nothing. Nothing is fundamentally inconceivable, and is simply defined in abstract -- a postulated antithesis of the 'something' we're familiar with.

This is also the case when you think about "something" your still stuck in imagination land, the land of ideas and concepts................so what is the point here ?
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:43:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 1:31:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

This is also the case when you think about "something" your still stuck in imagination land, the land of ideas and concepts................so what is the point here ?

The point wasn't that imagination can't be trusted. The point was that the mental faculties which allow us to apprehend certain concepts depend on familiarity. Our apprehension of 'rock' is of the surest order because we have an experience of what the word entails and what it's referring to. Presumably, the same applies to the term 'something' because we're surrounded with 'somethings'... 'Nothing', however, has no experiential reference, and just functions as an abstract postulate defined as the absence of things. In order to conceive of what 'nothing' is, we approximate it to the extent that we're able -- usually with some tacit visualization of the void of space. But strict consideration of the definition of the term tells us that this is a poor model.

The reason why it may make sense ostensibly to ascribe the term "stable state" to nothingness is precisely because you're relying on that limited conceptual approximation. By reference to the strict definition of the term, however, it permits no such ascription.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:50:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 1:43:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:31:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

This is also the case when you think about "something" your still stuck in imagination land, the land of ideas and concepts................so what is the point here ?

The point wasn't that imagination can't be trusted. The point was that the mental faculties which allow us to apprehend certain concepts depend on familiarity. Our apprehension of 'rock' is of the surest order because we have an experience of what the word entails and what it's referring to. Presumably, the same applies to the term 'something' because we're surrounded with 'somethings'... 'Nothing', however, has no experiential reference, and just functions as an abstract postulate defined as the absence of things. In order to conceive of what 'nothing' is, we approximate it to the extent that we're able -- usually with some tacit visualization of the void of space. But strict consideration of the definition of the term tells us that this is a poor model.

The reason why it may make sense ostensibly to ascribe the term "stable state" to nothingness is precisely because you're relying on that limited conceptual approximation. By reference to the strict definition of the term, however, it permits no such ascription.

Now with all that said, can we rule out that a state of nothing may not operate the way people assume it would in such a state of affairs ?
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:53:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 1:50:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:43:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:31:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

This is also the case when you think about "something" your still stuck in imagination land, the land of ideas and concepts................so what is the point here ?

The point wasn't that imagination can't be trusted. The point was that the mental faculties which allow us to apprehend certain concepts depend on familiarity. Our apprehension of 'rock' is of the surest order because we have an experience of what the word entails and what it's referring to. Presumably, the same applies to the term 'something' because we're surrounded with 'somethings'... 'Nothing', however, has no experiential reference, and just functions as an abstract postulate defined as the absence of things. In order to conceive of what 'nothing' is, we approximate it to the extent that we're able -- usually with some tacit visualization of the void of space. But strict consideration of the definition of the term tells us that this is a poor model.

The reason why it may make sense ostensibly to ascribe the term "stable state" to nothingness is precisely because you're relying on that limited conceptual approximation. By reference to the strict definition of the term, however, it permits no such ascription.

Now with all that said, can we rule out that a state of nothing may not operate the way people assume it would in such a state of affairs ?

I don't quite understand the question. Can you rephrase it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 1:56:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 1:53:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:50:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:43:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:31:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

This is also the case when you think about "something" your still stuck in imagination land, the land of ideas and concepts................so what is the point here ?

The point wasn't that imagination can't be trusted. The point was that the mental faculties which allow us to apprehend certain concepts depend on familiarity. Our apprehension of 'rock' is of the surest order because we have an experience of what the word entails and what it's referring to. Presumably, the same applies to the term 'something' because we're surrounded with 'somethings'... 'Nothing', however, has no experiential reference, and just functions as an abstract postulate defined as the absence of things. In order to conceive of what 'nothing' is, we approximate it to the extent that we're able -- usually with some tacit visualization of the void of space. But strict consideration of the definition of the term tells us that this is a poor model.

The reason why it may make sense ostensibly to ascribe the term "stable state" to nothingness is precisely because you're relying on that limited conceptual approximation. By reference to the strict definition of the term, however, it permits no such ascription.

Now with all that said, can we rule out that a state of nothing may not operate the way people assume it would in such a state of affairs ?

I don't quite understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

If the state of affairs was as such that no things existed, would it be the case that this state would always be the case or is it possible that this state could change into another state ?
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 2:07:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 1:56:29 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:53:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:50:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:43:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:31:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

This is also the case when you think about "something" your still stuck in imagination land, the land of ideas and concepts................so what is the point here ?

The point wasn't that imagination can't be trusted. The point was that the mental faculties which allow us to apprehend certain concepts depend on familiarity. Our apprehension of 'rock' is of the surest order because we have an experience of what the word entails and what it's referring to. Presumably, the same applies to the term 'something' because we're surrounded with 'somethings'... 'Nothing', however, has no experiential reference, and just functions as an abstract postulate defined as the absence of things. In order to conceive of what 'nothing' is, we approximate it to the extent that we're able -- usually with some tacit visualization of the void of space. But strict consideration of the definition of the term tells us that this is a poor model.

The reason why it may make sense ostensibly to ascribe the term "stable state" to nothingness is precisely because you're relying on that limited conceptual approximation. By reference to the strict definition of the term, however, it permits no such ascription.

Now with all that said, can we rule out that a state of nothing may not operate the way people assume it would in such a state of affairs ?

I don't quite understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

If the state of affairs was as such that no things existed, would it be the case that this state would always be the case or is it possible that this state could change into another state ?

Well I reject the premise of the question. The import of the foregoing argument was that the use of the term 'state of affairs' in reference to 'nothingness' presented a conceptual contradiction -- and that this apposition of the words 'state' and 'nothing' appeared consistent only because of the way we approximate the concept of 'nothingness.'

Nothingness is not a state of affairs, and it has no properties. There is no adjective in the English language (or any language for that matter) that can cogently describe what nothingness is. It becomes absurd, then, to ask whether it's stable or not.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 2:14:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 2:07:08 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:56:29 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:53:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:50:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:43:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 1:31:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

This is also the case when you think about "something" your still stuck in imagination land, the land of ideas and concepts................so what is the point here ?

The point wasn't that imagination can't be trusted. The point was that the mental faculties which allow us to apprehend certain concepts depend on familiarity. Our apprehension of 'rock' is of the surest order because we have an experience of what the word entails and what it's referring to. Presumably, the same applies to the term 'something' because we're surrounded with 'somethings'... 'Nothing', however, has no experiential reference, and just functions as an abstract postulate defined as the absence of things. In order to conceive of what 'nothing' is, we approximate it to the extent that we're able -- usually with some tacit visualization of the void of space. But strict consideration of the definition of the term tells us that this is a poor model.

The reason why it may make sense ostensibly to ascribe the term "stable state" to nothingness is precisely because you're relying on that limited conceptual approximation. By reference to the strict definition of the term, however, it permits no such ascription.

Now with all that said, can we rule out that a state of nothing may not operate the way people assume it would in such a state of affairs ?

I don't quite understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

If the state of affairs was as such that no things existed, would it be the case that this state would always be the case or is it possible that this state could change into another state ?

Well I reject the premise of the question. The import of the foregoing argument was that the use of the term 'state of affairs' in reference to 'nothingness' presented a conceptual contradiction -- and that this apposition of the words 'state' and 'nothing' appeared consistent only because of the way we approximate the concept of 'nothingness.'

Nothingness is not a state of affairs, and it has no properties. There is no adjective in the English language (or any language for that matter) that can cogently describe what nothingness is. It becomes absurd, then, to ask whether it's stable or not.

We can describe a state as being the absence of anything.

Ner ner.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 6:38:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Nothingness amounts to zero information or a complete lack of definitional constraint. Anything more than that and we're still talking about something. Since there isn't anything about nothingness that is a certain way, it's not anything in particular. So nothingness is infinitely unstable in the sense that it imposes no constraint on what is and what is not possible. But since actualization amounts to constraint (a range of possibilities constrained such that only one remains) a universe can only come about if it is self-constraining in nature. Obviously, where there is no prior constraint to prevent this from happening, it's meaningless to talk about this being "impossible"; if the relevant constraint actually had any ontological force with respect to this reality, it would be part of it, and thus wouldn't be in the position to undermine its "self-creation".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 8:01:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
One might object to the definition I've given to nothingness on the grounds that zero informational constraint is itself a restriction on the nature of "nothingness". This is a bad objection for two reasons. First, nothingness DOES contain constraint insofar as reality is a self-restriction of nothingness (infinite potential). Second, objecting to the definition because it is "contradictory" is no less contradictory than the definition given. The fact that nothingness is contradictory is not itself contradictory given that nothingness does not claim to be this or that thing.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 8:17:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 6:38:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Nothingness amounts to zero information or a complete lack of definitional constraint. Anything more than that and we're still talking about something. Since there isn't anything about nothingness that is a certain way, it's not anything in particular. So nothingness is infinitely unstable in the sense that it imposes no constraint on what is and what is not possible. But since actualization amounts to constraint (a range of possibilities constrained such that only one remains) a universe can only come about if it is self-constraining in nature. Obviously, where there is no prior constraint to prevent this from happening, it's meaningless to talk about this being "impossible"; if the relevant constraint actually had any ontological force with respect to this reality, it would be part of it, and thus wouldn't be in the position to undermine its "self-creation".

I think it's unproductive to conceive of nothingness in terms of information and constraint, precisely for the reasons outlined above. Nothingness has no positive definition, and as such cannot be positively described -- it's an abstract postulate defined in the negative - that is, the absence of 'something.' What this absence entails is fundamentally unknowable (if it entails anything at all [probably not]).

It is neither stable nor unstable, constrained nor unconstrained. We can impute no attribute to nothingness, for doing so would make it 'something'. In short, nothing is nothing, and discussion cannot properly advance far beyond that.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 8:32:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 8:17:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 6:38:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Nothingness amounts to zero information or a complete lack of definitional constraint. Anything more than that and we're still talking about something. Since there isn't anything about nothingness that is a certain way, it's not anything in particular. So nothingness is infinitely unstable in the sense that it imposes no constraint on what is and what is not possible. But since actualization amounts to constraint (a range of possibilities constrained such that only one remains) a universe can only come about if it is self-constraining in nature. Obviously, where there is no prior constraint to prevent this from happening, it's meaningless to talk about this being "impossible"; if the relevant constraint actually had any ontological force with respect to this reality, it would be part of it, and thus wouldn't be in the position to undermine its "self-creation".

I think it's unproductive to conceive of nothingness in terms of information and constraint, precisely for the reasons outlined above. Nothingness has no positive definition, and as such cannot be positively described -- it's an abstract postulate defined in the negative - that is, the absence of 'something.' What this absence entails is fundamentally unknowable (if it entails anything at all [probably not]).

It is neither stable nor unstable, constrained nor unconstrained. We can impute no attribute to nothingness, for doing so would make it 'something'. In short, nothing is nothing, and discussion cannot properly advance far beyond that.

You're basically saying that nothingness is undefined, which is in effect what I'm claiming as well. However, there are implications. Actually, this exact argument was brought up in one of Langan's exchanges, which illustrates well why the objection fails.

"In fairness to Parallel, he seems to attempt to specify a paradox when he opines that "the undefinable" cannot have well-defined properties such as "unbound", "without restraint", and "zero extension and duration". But this attempt is a bit hard to figure, since if the property "undefinable" is well-enough defined to be contradicted by the properties "unbound", "without restraint", and "zero extension and duration" as Parallel maintains, then it is well-enough defined to be described by them as well, particularly with respect to a model involving syntactic and presyntactic stages. Because Parallel does not take account of such a model, he can't be talking about the CTMU. What Parallel is talking about, only he knows for sure."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 8:41:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 8:32:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/27/2015 8:17:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 6:38:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Nothingness amounts to zero information or a complete lack of definitional constraint. Anything more than that and we're still talking about something. Since there isn't anything about nothingness that is a certain way, it's not anything in particular. So nothingness is infinitely unstable in the sense that it imposes no constraint on what is and what is not possible. But since actualization amounts to constraint (a range of possibilities constrained such that only one remains) a universe can only come about if it is self-constraining in nature. Obviously, where there is no prior constraint to prevent this from happening, it's meaningless to talk about this being "impossible"; if the relevant constraint actually had any ontological force with respect to this reality, it would be part of it, and thus wouldn't be in the position to undermine its "self-creation".

I think it's unproductive to conceive of nothingness in terms of information and constraint, precisely for the reasons outlined above. Nothingness has no positive definition, and as such cannot be positively described -- it's an abstract postulate defined in the negative - that is, the absence of 'something.' What this absence entails is fundamentally unknowable (if it entails anything at all [probably not]).

It is neither stable nor unstable, constrained nor unconstrained. We can impute no attribute to nothingness, for doing so would make it 'something'. In short, nothing is nothing, and discussion cannot properly advance far beyond that.

You're basically saying that nothingness is undefined, which is in effect what I'm claiming as well. However, there are implications. Actually, this exact argument was brought up in one of Langan's exchanges, which illustrates well why the objection fails.

"In fairness to Parallel, he seems to attempt to specify a paradox when he opines that "the undefinable" cannot have well-defined properties such as "unbound", "without restraint", and "zero extension and duration". But this attempt is a bit hard to figure, since if the property "undefinable" is well-enough defined to be contradicted by the properties "unbound", "without restraint", and "zero extension and duration" as Parallel maintains, then it is well-enough defined to be described by them as well, particularly with respect to a model involving syntactic and presyntactic stages. Because Parallel does not take account of such a model, he can't be talking about the CTMU. What Parallel is talking about, only he knows for sure."

Actually no that's not what I'm saying, and the objection that follows is wholly contingent on the condition that I accept that nothingness can be defined as "undefined." The point I'm making is that nothingness is an intractable concept which allows no deductive entailment or positive attributions on the basis of its definition. Nothing is not defined or undefined -- these adjectives don't apply. Nothingness is the absence of 'something' -- and since we only possess the capacity to speak and think in terms of 'something', the term in question strictly proscribes deviation from its hypothetical and descriptively circuitous definition.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 9:09:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 8:41:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 8:32:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/27/2015 8:17:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 6:38:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Nothingness amounts to zero information or a complete lack of definitional constraint. Anything more than that and we're still talking about something. Since there isn't anything about nothingness that is a certain way, it's not anything in particular. So nothingness is infinitely unstable in the sense that it imposes no constraint on what is and what is not possible. But since actualization amounts to constraint (a range of possibilities constrained such that only one remains) a universe can only come about if it is self-constraining in nature. Obviously, where there is no prior constraint to prevent this from happening, it's meaningless to talk about this being "impossible"; if the relevant constraint actually had any ontological force with respect to this reality, it would be part of it, and thus wouldn't be in the position to undermine its "self-creation".

I think it's unproductive to conceive of nothingness in terms of information and constraint, precisely for the reasons outlined above. Nothingness has no positive definition, and as such cannot be positively described -- it's an abstract postulate defined in the negative - that is, the absence of 'something.' What this absence entails is fundamentally unknowable (if it entails anything at all [probably not]).

It is neither stable nor unstable, constrained nor unconstrained. We can impute no attribute to nothingness, for doing so would make it 'something'. In short, nothing is nothing, and discussion cannot properly advance far beyond that.

You're basically saying that nothingness is undefined, which is in effect what I'm claiming as well. However, there are implications. Actually, this exact argument was brought up in one of Langan's exchanges, which illustrates well why the objection fails.

"In fairness to Parallel, he seems to attempt to specify a paradox when he opines that "the undefinable" cannot have well-defined properties such as "unbound", "without restraint", and "zero extension and duration". But this attempt is a bit hard to figure, since if the property "undefinable" is well-enough defined to be contradicted by the properties "unbound", "without restraint", and "zero extension and duration" as Parallel maintains, then it is well-enough defined to be described by them as well, particularly with respect to a model involving syntactic and presyntactic stages. Because Parallel does not take account of such a model, he can't be talking about the CTMU. What Parallel is talking about, only he knows for sure."

Actually no that's not what I'm saying, and the objection that follows is wholly contingent on the condition that I accept that nothingness can be defined as "undefined." The point I'm making is that nothingness is an intractable concept which allows no deductive entailment or positive attributions on the basis of its definition. Nothing is not defined or undefined -- these adjectives don't apply. Nothingness is the absence of 'something' -- and since we only possess the capacity to speak and think in terms of 'something', the term in question strictly proscribes deviation from its hypothetical and descriptively circuitous definition.

"Nothingness is the absence of something"
"Nothingness is not defined"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 9:30:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 9:09:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

"Nothingness is the absence of something"
"Nothingness is not defined"

It's the difference between a direct, positive and indirect, negative claim. It's a subtle point, but not impossible to spot.

But for the sake of clarity, let's explore the analytic distinction more rigorously. The term "undefined" is synonymous with "uncontrained" - that is to say, there exist no strictures on the existential properties of the object or concept in question (I'm sure you see where I'm going with this). The tacit presumption in any invocation of that descriptor is that the thing described possesses existential properties to be defined or undefined in the first place. To say that nothing is undefined is to say that it could be anything. But seeing as 'nothing' necessarily possesses no such properties, indeed it is defined circuitously as the opposite of anything that is, we have to conclude the imputation of definition or the lack thereof violates the meaning of the term.

As was already mentioned, this tendency to deduce certain modest conclusions about the entailment of nothingness extends naturally from the norms of our language and our cognitive limitations. The only things we have the faculties to truly apprehend all exist in the category of 'something' --- and so when we approximate nothingness in an effort to reify the concept, we end up dealing with a 'something.' This tendency, while understandable, nevertheless leads to all kinds of absurdities (like applying the terms stability and non-definition as though nothing were something).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 1:47:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 9:30:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:09:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

"Nothingness is the absence of something"
"Nothingness is not defined"

It's the difference between a direct, positive and indirect, negative claim. It's a subtle point, but not impossible to spot.

"Nothingness is undefined " is logically equivalent to "Nothingness is the absence of information/definition". Since your definition of nothing uses "is the absence of", I don't see why mine couldn't use it either. If "nothingness is undefined" doesn't work for you, you could think of it as "The meaning of nothingness is such that no definition can be ascribed (because it's undefined)".

we have to conclude the imputation of definition or the lack thereof violates the meaning of the term.

How can the term have "meaning" if we are unjustified in ascribing to it definition of any kind? How can it even be a term under those conditions?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 2:00:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 1:47:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:30:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:09:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

"Nothingness is the absence of something"
"Nothingness is not defined"

It's the difference between a direct, positive and indirect, negative claim. It's a subtle point, but not impossible to spot.

"Nothingness is undefined " is logically equivalent to "Nothingness is the absence of information/definition". Since your definition of nothing uses "is the absence of", I don't see why mine couldn't use it either. If "nothingness is undefined" doesn't work for you, you could think of it as "The meaning of nothingness is such that no definition can be ascribed (because it's undefined)".

Okay so it was my understanding that by "undefined" you meant "unconstrained/unbounded"... in which case I would encourage you to respond to my analysis of the error in attributing that description to nothingness. If you mean, however, "undefined" qua lacking definition, then I'm just confused. Nothing is clearly defined as the absence of something. That's the definition, albeit an indirect one.

we have to conclude the imputation of definition or the lack thereof violates the meaning of the term.

How can the term have "meaning" if we are unjustified in ascribing to it definition of any kind? How can it even be a term under those conditions?

No,....it has a definition. The definition is just a hypothesis whose entailment is inevident. It's an indirect, negative definition -- a postulated opposite of the 'something' we're already familiar with. What I'm saying is that there's no cogent way to make a positive statement about nothingness -- wherever the term is invoked, discussed and described, it must be with invariant adherence to that circuitous, negative definition.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 2:40:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

I would say that such a state is not truly nothingness. Chaos or indeterminacy implies that that there is something to be out of order or something that cannot be determined. Of course, this cannot be nothing because there must be something for concepts such as chaos or indeterminacy to be coherent.

I think it is important to define "nothing" before one flings the word around. I would define nothingness as the total absence of potentiality. This is Aristotelian jargon that basically means that nothingness has not even the potential for something to arise from it. Of course someone may deem this definition as circular when we are asking the question of whether something can arise from nothing since I am defining nothing as that which something cannot even potentially arise from.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 2:44:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 12:29:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 12:06:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has being said from nothing, nothing comes.

What this means or so it is imagined if you have a state of No things/absence of anything then you will always have that state of affairs, that being a state of nothing.

So as it is imagined if you start of with a state of nothing, then your next state will be nothing, and the state after that will be nothing...............forever and ever and ever without exception.

But what if the assumption of how stable nothing is wrong ? What if a state of nothing has some sort of chaos or indeterminacy to it.

And if change can happen to a state of nothing what would or can happen ? a different type of nothing ? maybe something ?

That kind of reasoning is patently illogical as long as you maintain a clear and accurate conception of what "nothing" means.

The rigid syntactical categories of our language has at times obstructed our understanding of certain concepts. In this case, because we nounify our objects without exception, we've developed a tendency to objectify our nouns. Essentially, you are treating 'nothing' as an object - a species of 'something' - and that results in a definitional contradiction.

'Nothing' is not a thing, a state, or a characteristic -- it is an abstraction designed to give name to the absence of those things. As such it can't change and can't have properties -- concepts like stability and instability simply don't apply.

I agree with this.
Nolite Timere
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 5:26:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
If you mean, 'how stable is empty space.' I'd say that we don't really know because the mechanics of quantum field theory are still a work in progress. If you mean, 'how stable was the nothingness before space existed.' I'd say that doesn't even make any sense. There's no such thing as 'before space existed' as space entails time, and you can't say 'before time existed.'

I sense your OP is trying to postulate that the big bang randomly happened from nothing at all because our views of 'stable nothingless' are flawed. I don't think this makes much sense at all.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 11:56:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 2:00:35 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/28/2015 1:47:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:30:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:09:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

"Nothingness is the absence of something"
"Nothingness is not defined"

It's the difference between a direct, positive and indirect, negative claim. It's a subtle point, but not impossible to spot.

"Nothingness is undefined " is logically equivalent to "Nothingness is the absence of information/definition". Since your definition of nothing uses "is the absence of", I don't see why mine couldn't use it either. If "nothingness is undefined" doesn't work for you, you could think of it as "The meaning of nothingness is such that no definition can be ascribed (because it's undefined)".

Okay so it was my understanding that by "undefined" you meant "unconstrained/unbounded"... in which case I would encourage you to respond to my analysis of the error in attributing that description to nothingness. If you mean, however, "undefined" qua lacking definition, then I'm just confused. Nothing is clearly defined as the absence of something. That's the definition, albeit an indirect one.


I don't agree with that definition. The "absence of something" is still something insofar as it can be distinguished from its logical negation (something). The absence of information itself faces no such difficulty since it can't even be distinguished from information i.e., reality, since reality is a self-restriction of its unbound potential i.e., undefined nature.

we have to conclude the imputation of definition or the lack thereof violates the meaning of the term.

How can the term have "meaning" if we are unjustified in ascribing to it definition of any kind? How can it even be a term under those conditions?

No,....it has a definition. The definition is just a hypothesis whose entailment is inevident. It's an indirect, negative definition -- a postulated opposite of the 'something' we're already familiar with. What I'm saying is that there's no cogent way to make a positive statement about nothingness -- wherever the term is invoked, discussed and described, it must be with invariant adherence to that circuitous, negative definition.

What is meant by "not something"? First of all, what does "something" mean? Under what conditions is X "something" and how do we recognize when those conditions aren't met? What would it take for X to not qualify as something? Until you can answer that, "not something" is no better a definition of nothingness than "not cat" is a definition of "dog". We need someway of meaningfully interpreting "not something" otherwise we don't even know what we're talking about.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 12:38:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 11:56:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/28/2015 2:00:35 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/28/2015 1:47:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:30:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/27/2015 9:09:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

"Nothingness is the absence of something"
"Nothingness is not defined"

It's the difference between a direct, positive and indirect, negative claim. It's a subtle point, but not impossible to spot.

"Nothingness is undefined " is logically equivalent to "Nothingness is the absence of information/definition". Since your definition of nothing uses "is the absence of", I don't see why mine couldn't use it either. If "nothingness is undefined" doesn't work for you, you could think of it as "The meaning of nothingness is such that no definition can be ascribed (because it's undefined)".

Okay so it was my understanding that by "undefined" you meant "unconstrained/unbounded"... in which case I would encourage you to respond to my analysis of the error in attributing that description to nothingness. If you mean, however, "undefined" qua lacking definition, then I'm just confused. Nothing is clearly defined as the absence of something. That's the definition, albeit an indirect one.


I don't agree with that definition. The "absence of something" is still something insofar as it can be distinguished from its logical negation (something). The absence of information itself faces no such difficulty since it can't even be distinguished from information i.e., reality, since reality is a self-restriction of its unbound potential i.e., undefined nature.

we have to conclude the imputation of definition or the lack thereof violates the meaning of the term.

How can the term have "meaning" if we are unjustified in ascribing to it definition of any kind? How can it even be a term under those conditions?

No,....it has a definition. The definition is just a hypothesis whose entailment is inevident. It's an indirect, negative definition -- a postulated opposite of the 'something' we're already familiar with. What I'm saying is that there's no cogent way to make a positive statement about nothingness -- wherever the term is invoked, discussed and described, it must be with invariant adherence to that circuitous, negative definition.

What is meant by "not something"? First of all, what does "something" mean? Under what conditions is X "something" and how do we recognize when those conditions aren't met? What would it take for X to not qualify as something? Until you can answer that, "not something" is no better a definition of nothingness than "not cat" is a definition of "dog".

By virtue of your referring to it and by virtue of your calling it "X", "X" is undoubtedly a thing.

The concept of 'nothing' is a difficult one to apprehend because it has a syntactical function that contravenes its meaning. By virtue of that fact that it has a name, that it is a noun, in the same grammatical category as objects, we tend to manipulate and apply the concept of 'nothing' as though it were something. 'Nothing', to be sure, is nothing... it is "not something." We have to resist the tendency to append more descriptions to that definition. Nothing is not "the thing that is not something", it is not "when there is not something" or "where there is not something" or "that which is not something" or "a state that lacks something" -- nothing is "not something".

Your "not-cat" example is self-evidently disanalogous.

We need someway of meaningfully interpreting "not something" otherwise we don't even know what we're talking about.

In some respect that's kind of the point... we aren't talking about anything. The only reason why the word even has any meaning to us is that we've tethered the concept to some hypothetical and unimaginable alteration of what we do know and understand - hence the definition is "not something". The entailment of 'nothing' is just not cognitively accessible. Nothing, indeed, has no entailment -- which makes it very difficult to validly adduce the concept in a sentence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 4:38:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 11:56:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

I don't agree with that definition. The "absence of something" is still something insofar as it can be distinguished from its logical negation (something). The absence of information itself faces no such difficulty since it can't even be distinguished from information i.e., reality, since reality is a self-restriction of its unbound potential i.e., undefined nature.

That's incorrect. The absence of something is nothing. Something cannot be distinguished from nothing, because there is nothing there possessing a character against which 'something' might be compared. This is not to say that something and nothing are the same thing -- it is to say that the act of comparison is fallacious ab initio.

And also consider that 'information' is as general in its referent as the term 'something' ... you're really not saying anything new if your proposed definition is the 'absence of information'
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault