and i argue that you can only have nothing without its opposite. by definition.ninjadanslarbretabar said:
there was an excellent 'what is nothing' thread in here before but it must have scrolled.
alasdair
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Why is there something when there could be nothing?
- Thread starter spaceyourbass
- Start date
there was an excellent 'what is nothing' thread in here before but it must have scrolled.
alasdair
ninjadanslarbretabar
Bluelighter
but thats only in the semantic realm no ?alasdairm said:
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
the concept nothing and nothing are distinct. The concept nothing has what philosophers call 'correctness conditions'. That is to say, it is correct to state nothing for certain conditions and not for others.
Concepts are about things, so how can a nothing concept even exist? or is the nothing concept not really about nothing but rather something?
Concepts are about things, so how can a nothing concept even exist? or is the nothing concept not really about nothing but rather something?
^ there are abstract concepts which are not about 'things'.
in the 'real' realm? maybe. maybe not.
alasdair
in the semantic realm? certainlyninjadanslarbretabar said:
in the 'real' realm? maybe. maybe not.
alasdair
ninjadanslarbretabar
Bluelighter
^it depend if he would try to go up there or go down there
the height would be relative to his intention
the height would be relative to his intention
jam uh weezy
Bluelighter
there is no such thing, as no thing.
haha werds. merely a distraction from what you're really trying to say.
haha werds. merely a distraction from what you're really trying to say.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Like what?alasdairm said:
A thing can be abstract mate
a concept is simply something conceived (in the mind). i can conceive the concept of "nothing".
alasdair
alasdair
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
What makes you so sure that your 'nothing' concept is really about nothing though? For instance, your nothing concept may just be a mental representation of the word nothing or it may be about an empty set (this is how nothing is represented syntactically in formal logics). But a word and an empty set are not nothing in the metaphysical sense we are talking about.alasdairm said:
But, I like the beginnings of your definition. It shows that we can conceive of things that do not exist.
how you can even begin to know what my concept of nothing is, is beyond me.
i would have thought that the ability to conceive things which don't exist was self-evident.
alasdair
i would have thought that the ability to conceive things which don't exist was self-evident.
alasdair
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
ok alasdairm, chill the f out dude 
you also have the honor of being the first person to be added to my ignore list.
take is easy,
andy
you also have the honor of being the first person to be added to my ignore list.
take is easy,
andy
Roger&Me
Bluelighter
A state of nothingness is still a state, is it not? Therefore....it's something. But......it's also nothing. Well, that's because its both.
I hate to boil it down to such a simple statement; but I'm struggling to put into words the notion I'm conceptualizing. Even when analyzing it mathematically, you encounter the same problem; 0 is both real and non-real. Hence the whole problem with dividing by it.
Maybe its because both states imply each other? Somethingness implies nothingness and vice versa. Hence the whole idea behind matter's inherent "emptiness" in buddhism.
It's a paradox: its an apparent contradiction that, in actuality, points to a non-dual truth.
I hate to boil it down to such a simple statement; but I'm struggling to put into words the notion I'm conceptualizing. Even when analyzing it mathematically, you encounter the same problem; 0 is both real and non-real. Hence the whole problem with dividing by it.
Maybe its because both states imply each other? Somethingness implies nothingness and vice versa. Hence the whole idea behind matter's inherent "emptiness" in buddhism.
It's a paradox: its an apparent contradiction that, in actuality, points to a non-dual truth.
"state of nothingness" is just the label you are using to describe it.Roger&Me said:
my concept of nothing could describe it as a big, red nothing. that doesn't make it big and red.
alasdair
IGNVS
Bluelighter
we cannot answer the question "why is there something, when there could be nothing" until we recognize first that there will always be something and we must desire nothing
spaceyourbass
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,750
^I think so, but that doesn't negate the fact that something exists elsewhere.
To me, it seems that the only semi-logical explanation is that a being created something. I really don't believe in God with allmy heart though, so thinking about this was a mindfuck while on a psychedelic. Not only does something exist for some reason, but we evolved as conscious beings, conscous of our consciousness. Now I see why people started believing in God as the creator so long ago.
To me, it seems that the only semi-logical explanation is that a being created something. I really don't believe in God with allmy heart though, so thinking about this was a mindfuck while on a psychedelic. Not only does something exist for some reason, but we evolved as conscious beings, conscous of our consciousness. Now I see why people started believing in God as the creator so long ago.
qwe
Bluelight Crew
a short sci fi story i read, by A C Clarke IIRC, started by talking about this flowing river of spacetime, with a vast amount of universes on its edges like eddies in an actual river. the short story was based on a universe where there was one star, one planet, and an interesting spacetime geometry
i think it's quite probable that we exist within a 'multiverse' other universes, with different constants/properties, different geometries, etc
why are we in this one? because this one is favorable to the development of beings like us. the anthropic principle, it's done as much as occam's razor when we need to defend against the relatively unevolved theists
(joke)
why are there universes at all? well, we dont even know why there is a background to THIS one (quantum vaacuum--its not really as vaacuumous as youd think) of spacetime, even in terms of general relativity, why would spacetime be a seemingly malleable 'structure'-like entity?
aka, what lies behind spacetime and the extensions within spacetime like electrons? what is behind the scenes, what is more primitive?
if there is no 'time' or 'space' beyond the big bang, i personally believe there still has to be physics beyond the big bang. the universe's mysteries can't just end at some fundamental particles, because we are left with the question of what makes THOSE particles tick? then we find out all over again, they arent really the fundamental entities
makes you wonder whether the search will EVER be over?
i think it's quite probable that we exist within a 'multiverse' other universes, with different constants/properties, different geometries, etc
why are we in this one? because this one is favorable to the development of beings like us. the anthropic principle, it's done as much as occam's razor when we need to defend against the relatively unevolved theists
(joke)why are there universes at all? well, we dont even know why there is a background to THIS one (quantum vaacuum--its not really as vaacuumous as youd think) of spacetime, even in terms of general relativity, why would spacetime be a seemingly malleable 'structure'-like entity?
aka, what lies behind spacetime and the extensions within spacetime like electrons? what is behind the scenes, what is more primitive?
if there is no 'time' or 'space' beyond the big bang, i personally believe there still has to be physics beyond the big bang. the universe's mysteries can't just end at some fundamental particles, because we are left with the question of what makes THOSE particles tick? then we find out all over again, they arent really the fundamental entities
makes you wonder whether the search will EVER be over?
Peter van Inwagen has devised a probabilistic proof that the existence of something is infinitely more likely than nothingness. The argument rests on the concept of possible worlds, and on the principle of identity of indiscernables, which was formulated by Liebniz. The principle is that any two things that have all the same properties are, in fact, the same thing; if two things are completely identical qualitatively and relationally, then they are numerically identical.
Now, given that any two possible worlds that have identical properties are actually the same possible world, there is only one possible world in which nothing exists. However, there are a huge number, even an infinite number, of possible worlds in which something does exist. Thus, for any world, the chances of it containing nothing are infinitesimal, and the chance of it containing something almost certain.
Not really too sure what to make of the argument, it's not very compelling intuitively, but it's certainly interesting.
qwe, if you're interested in participating in a thread you last posted in two years ago:
The multiverse theory you propose has been criticised, as it seems to be motivated by dodgy reasoning. The gambler's fallacy is the belief a die that has been rolled many times without a six being rolled is more likely to come up six on the next roll. This is false, of course, as each dice roll is an independent event. The inverse gambler's fallacy is the belief that, because a die is showing a six, it must have been rolled multiple times. The existence of many worlds does not have any effect on how our world is. You mention Occam's razor; positing the existence of a multiverse is hardly parsimonious.
As for the anthropic principle, I don't think it explains much. Sure, we can only observe worlds which are capable of supporting life. It explains why, in order for a world to be observed, it must be the way it is. However, our surprise is not at the way the world is, but that it is at all. I'm not surprised that the world I'm observing is the way it is, but that it exists.
Now, given that any two possible worlds that have identical properties are actually the same possible world, there is only one possible world in which nothing exists. However, there are a huge number, even an infinite number, of possible worlds in which something does exist. Thus, for any world, the chances of it containing nothing are infinitesimal, and the chance of it containing something almost certain.
Not really too sure what to make of the argument, it's not very compelling intuitively, but it's certainly interesting.
qwe, if you're interested in participating in a thread you last posted in two years ago:
The multiverse theory you propose has been criticised, as it seems to be motivated by dodgy reasoning. The gambler's fallacy is the belief a die that has been rolled many times without a six being rolled is more likely to come up six on the next roll. This is false, of course, as each dice roll is an independent event. The inverse gambler's fallacy is the belief that, because a die is showing a six, it must have been rolled multiple times. The existence of many worlds does not have any effect on how our world is. You mention Occam's razor; positing the existence of a multiverse is hardly parsimonious.
As for the anthropic principle, I don't think it explains much. Sure, we can only observe worlds which are capable of supporting life. It explains why, in order for a world to be observed, it must be the way it is. However, our surprise is not at the way the world is, but that it is at all. I'm not surprised that the world I'm observing is the way it is, but that it exists.