• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Why is there something when there could be nothing?

we cant comprehend "nothing", all we know of is something. everything is something in our reality/relm/whatever
 
yougene said:
I think if using an ontology that differentiates nothingness from its finite content( e.g scalars ), everything is different in that it is a union of both. In that case, everything is a partial ordering of the nothing/something dichotomy.

I might just be digging into inconsequential minutiae here...But I believe something wrong with "everything" in your schematic, as it encompasses only various somethings, even if that particular something is a 'non-thing', which nonetheless means in contrast to "something".

Basically, the problem is that our everything, the everything that we desire to capture and understand, immediately jumps to the level of describing 'everything', as the set of something and nothing, encompassed by "everything", along with the relationships and characteristics of the three, and the system's set of rules that guides them.

Thus, there must always be a cradle of 'no-thing' conditioning the emergence of something, both in terms of opening space for autonomy but also setting out this space by constricting possible somethings in becoming.

Is this God?
 
first killed, now god is voided. what next?
 
As perspectives that can be entered, "samsara" "nirvana" and the non-dual are all distinct spaces. The experience of emptiness, although enveloping "something" still maintains a delineation of an outside observer looking in. In this sense they are dichotomous counterparts and can be modeled as sibling nodes. The dichotomy is transcended in the non-dual perspective.

Your temporalized structural hierarchy is valid as well. We're just thinking in terms of different relations.

The non-dual node is problematic in graphing in that it doesn't only contain these differentiated components but also composes them as substance. It's simultaneously the highest rung in the ladder and the wood the ladder is made of.

Is this God?
God contains the intrinsic propertyof completion and as Godel has shown us, nothing complete can be consistently delineated. Yes it is God, as is everything else. God as completion exists within a phenomonological space where the delineation of wholes/parts is in flux. Where the act of delineating God and drawing relations, modifies said delineation. Maybe.
 
The mind appears to be inherently dichotomizing, ascertaining the world via dualistic partition. Hence the distinction in the first place. The OP's implication is that we have the capacity to distance ourselves from this fundamental process and realistically conceive of [and intelligibly discuss] nondualistic alternatives within the bounds of conventional logic. I seriously doubt it.

i can conceive the concept of "nothing".

alasdair

Really? I can't. I always assumed that as a requisite for this singular power, one would need to achieve Buddha-mind or something. You mentioned that you can conceive of the nonexistance of particular things, but that's not really what's at issue here. I read the OP as referring to an ultimate existential vacuum - one which I'd argue we can never truly imagine. Again, maybe I'm just deficient in some way that you are not.
 
There isn't nothing and something. That implies a region of nothing. There's everything and that's it.
 
when you are asleep, in deep sleep not dreaming, does anything exist to you, do you exist. ?

To exist you must have the state of non existence as a polarity.
 
why is there something when there could be nothing?
this question is difficult and may never get an answer from mankind...who knows?
 
Question

As obvious as it may seem, I question the premise of this thread.

Is there something?

The reason I question so, is because it seems here there is no "nothing" to compare it against, in order to determine that there is something.
 
Top