442 replies to this topic

[serp777]

 

It is true you can’t conceive nothing if you conceive of it as something.  Nothing is not something to be conceived.    However we can conceive of non existence and talk about it otherwise this conversation would be nonsense.  The question does not ask why there is one thing or another but why there is anything at all.

Nothing is a handy concept when talking about the absence of things within a context. For example - there is nothing in the cookie jar. So in this case we conceive nothing as an empty cookie jar. But I don't think we can conceive the absence of existence itself. We always need a context, and the context is always existence in some form or other.

 

 

That isn't nothing by any stretch always. There's still volume in the empty cookie jar and the potential to store cookies, both of which are something.

[shadowhawk]

It makes it nothing.  You cant even conceive that can you?  OK not worth trying to convince you of what for centuries has been understood.

[serp777]

It makes it nothing.  You cant even conceive that can you?  OK not worth trying to convince you of what for centuries has been understood.

 

Argument from popularity and strawman with no evidence of all these people. Plenty of people thought the earth was flat for centuries. Completely invalid point.

 

How does one conceive of a nothing that doesn't have theproperty of the absence of something? Faulty logic 101.

[cats_lover]

"Nothing" is not part of our universe, at each point of our universe there is something (matter or vacuum). The question is: WHY THERE IS MATTER AND VACUUM?

 

Within our universe "nothing" has the property of not having properties; but actually this is not true because "nothing" does not exist in out universe.

 

If our universe did not exist, "nothing" would not have properties, because properties would not exist.

We are talking about "nothing" without propeties because in this context properties do not exist and are`nt possible

[serp777]

"Nothing" is not part of our universe, at each point of our universe there is something (matter or vacuum). The question is: WHY THERE IS MATTER AND VACUUM?

 

Within our universe "nothing" has the property of not having properties; but actually this is not true because "nothing" does not exist in out universe.

 

If our universe did not exist, "nothing" would not have properties, because properties would not exist.

We are talking about "nothing" without propeties because in this context properties do not exist and are`nt possible

 

There is no evidence or reasoning that nothing exists period, or could ever have existed, making the initial question a bad question. In fact that would be a contradiction anyways since nothing can't exist. Absolute nothing is an imagining by philosophers. There's no reason the reality of the universe should agree with the imaginings of philosophers. The fact that something exists reflects that nothing doesn't exist because there's no answer to why there would be something rather than nothing. A lot of why questions are bad, useless questions.

 

You can't talk about nothing without properties. In order to talk about a thing it needs to have a description otherwise it is a meaningless word. Please define a nothing that has no properties, I would be very interested. If you say it is the absence of nothing, then it has the property that it is different from something and is the absence of something.

 

if you say it has the property that it has no properties then that is a paradox. Fundamentally it appears that true nothing is a non existent impossibility and a paradox.

Edited by serp777, 24 November 2014 - 09:40 PM.

[cats_lover]

 

"Nothing" is not part of our universe, at each point of our universe there is something (matter or vacuum). The question is: WHY THERE IS MATTER AND VACUUM?

 

Within our universe "nothing" has the property of not having properties; but actually this is not true because "nothing" does not exist in out universe.

 

If our universe did not exist, "nothing" would not have properties, because properties would not exist.

We are talking about "nothing" without propeties because in this context properties do not exist and are`nt possible

 

There is no evidence or reasoning that nothing exists period, or could ever have existed, making the initial question a bad question. In fact that would be a contradiction anyways since nothing can't exist. Absolute nothing is an imagining by philosophers. There's no reason the reality of the universe should agree with the imaginings of philosophers. The fact that something exists reflects that nothing doesn't exist because there's no answer to why there would be something rather than nothing. A lot of why questions are bad, useless questions.

 

You can't talk about nothing without properties. In order to talk about a thing it needs to have a description otherwise it is a meaningless word. Please define a nothing that has no properties, I would be very interested. If you say it is the absence of nothing, then it has the property that it is different from something and is the absence of something.

 

if you say it has the property that it has no properties then that is a paradox. Fundamentally it appears that true nothing is a non existent impossibility and a paradox.

 

 

It is not my purpose to discuss the nature of the term "property" or "properties" but i dont know how correct is to considered "not have a property" as a property...

If this is correct everything have infinite properties; tigers have the property of not fly (as birds) and birds have the property of not farts fire... and so on...

 

We also have to consider that all possible number (or things) have the property of not being a different number which gives infinite properties to each number...

Then, accepting this; it is impossible to define something that has no properties, but these are "philosophical properties", "nothing" has no physical properties.

[serp777]

 

 

"Nothing" is not part of our universe, at each point of our universe there is something (matter or vacuum). The question is: WHY THERE IS MATTER AND VACUUM?

 

Within our universe "nothing" has the property of not having properties; but actually this is not true because "nothing" does not exist in out universe.

 

If our universe did not exist, "nothing" would not have properties, because properties would not exist.

We are talking about "nothing" without propeties because in this context properties do not exist and are`nt possible

 

There is no evidence or reasoning that nothing exists period, or could ever have existed, making the initial question a bad question. In fact that would be a contradiction anyways since nothing can't exist. Absolute nothing is an imagining by philosophers. There's no reason the reality of the universe should agree with the imaginings of philosophers. The fact that something exists reflects that nothing doesn't exist because there's no answer to why there would be something rather than nothing. A lot of why questions are bad, useless questions.

 

You can't talk about nothing without properties. In order to talk about a thing it needs to have a description otherwise it is a meaningless word. Please define a nothing that has no properties, I would be very interested. If you say it is the absence of nothing, then it has the property that it is different from something and is the absence of something.

 

if you say it has the property that it has no properties then that is a paradox. Fundamentally it appears that true nothing is a non existent impossibility and a paradox.

 

 

It is not my purpose to discuss the nature of the term "property" or "properties" but i dont know how correct is to considered "not have a property" as a property...

If this is correct everything have infinite properties; tigers have the property of not fly (as birds) and birds have the property of not farts fire... and so on...

 

We also have to consider that all possible number (or things) have the property of not being a different number which gives infinite properties to each number...

Then, accepting this; it is impossible to define something that has no properties, but these are "philosophical properties", "nothing" has no physical properties.

 

 

Nothing is just a philosophical construct though and is thus subject to philosophical properties. Nothing can't physically exist because that wouldn't make sense. Therefore how is nothing a physically valid concept anyways?

 

"If this is correct everything have infinite properties"

 

This makes sense, as all numbers have infinite properties. 1 = 76453245.2 - 76453244.2, 1 =/= 3+3 and so on. I have no issues with infinite properties.

Edited by serp777, 24 November 2014 - 10:12 PM.

[cats_lover]

Consider that something has the property of not being something else is not very practical but valid in any way. Nor is practical to consider a number x has the property of being "x + 1 -1" (you can use the rules of mathematics to generalize these properties).
You can also synthesize the infinite properties that has something of not to be something different not considering this as properties but consider it as a rule; cat is not a dog = Property... cat is not a glass = Property... or you can say cat is not nothing different that cat = Rule...

Science sets properties where this is relevant to the study of something; although valid, considering that something has the property of not being something else, it is a misuse for the purpose of establishing properties.

But as is say before... It is not my purpose to discuss the nature of the term "property" or "properties"...

About Universe or Nothing...
The universe cannot start form P.Nothing becuse P.Nothing cannot produce matter or energy, it is logical that there is no evidence that the beginning was from P.Nothing.

For me "Why there is a universe instead of P.Nothing?" it's a reasonable question; and if I have to accept that the universe has always been rather there (in one form or another), why is configured in this way? Why it has the actual amount of matter and energy and not more or less?

[serp777]

Consider that something has the property of not being something else is not very practical but valid in any way. Nor is practical to consider a number x has the property of being "x + 1 -1" (you can use the rules of mathematics to generalize these properties).
You can also synthesize the infinite properties that has something of not to be something different not considering this as properties but consider it as a rule; cat is not a dog = Property... cat is not a glass = Property... or you can say cat is not nothing different that cat = Rule...

Science sets properties where this is relevant to the study of something; although valid, considering that something has the property of not being something else, it is a misuse for the purpose of establishing properties.

But as is say before... It is not my purpose to discuss the nature of the term "property" or "properties"...

About Universe or Nothing...
The universe cannot start form P.Nothing becuse P.Nothing cannot produce matter or energy, it is logical that there is no evidence that the beginning was from P.Nothing.

For me "Why there is a universe instead of P.Nothing?" it's a reasonable question; and if I have to accept that the universe has always been rather there (in one form or another), why is configured in this way? Why it has the actual amount of matter and energy and not more or less?

 

Well regardless if they're practical or not, you can make an infinite number of axioms according to the incompleteness theorem which means there are an infinite number of generalizations that could be applied.

And I agree that the universe doesn't start from nothing because nothing isn't a physically valid concept worth considering.

 

"something has the property of not being something else, it is a misuse for the purpose of establishing properties."

 

I'm sure you'd agree then that nothing is a misuse or flawed concept because it is defined as the absence of something, or not something if you will.

 

The better question is why would there be nothing rather than something? The question itself reflects and inherent paradox however because nothing couldn't exist in place of something--if nothing exists then it is a thing and it exists and is therefore something. There couldn't be nothing instead of something.

Edited by serp777, 24 November 2014 - 11:46 PM.

[StevesPetRat]

This is interesting and food for good discussion but it does not address the topic.

The point was, as long as there is mathematics or more broadly the rules of logic, there will be something "physical". But it seems on a closer reading the discussion is currently mired in semantic debate, so I shall bow out. "Words are the beginning of lies"...

[Blink]

 

 

It is true you can’t conceive nothing if you conceive of it as something.  Nothing is not something to be conceived.    However we can conceive of non existence and talk about it otherwise this conversation would be nonsense.  The question does not ask why there is one thing or another but why there is anything at all.

Nothing is a handy concept when talking about the absence of things within a context. For example - there is nothing in the cookie jar. So in this case we conceive nothing as an empty cookie jar. But I don't think we can conceive the absence of existence itself. We always need a context, and the context is always existence in some form or other.

 

 

That isn't nothing by any stretch always. There's still volume in the empty cookie jar and the potential to store cookies, both of which are something.

 

 

Yes that's the point. It's like trying to imagine not having any sensory input what so ever - as in deep sleep or when we're dead. I guess we naturally imagine these states like an empty darkness, but an empty darkness is still something.

[shadowhawk]

 

This is interesting and food for good discussion but it does not address the topic.

The point was, as long as there is mathematics or more broadly the rules of logic, there will be something "physical". But it seems on a closer reading the discussion is currently mired in semantic debate, so I shall bow out. "Words are the beginning of lies"...

 

Math and Logic are abstract objects.  Do you think they are physical?  Do you think nothing is physical?  Does the only thing that exists have to be physical?

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

It is true you can’t conceive nothing if you conceive of it as something.  Nothing is not something to be conceived.    However we can conceive of non existence and talk about it otherwise this conversation would be nonsense.  The question does not ask why there is one thing or another but why there is anything at all.

Nothing is a handy concept when talking about the absence of things within a context. For example - there is nothing in the cookie jar. So in this case we conceive nothing as an empty cookie jar. But I don't think we can conceive the absence of existence itself. We always need a context, and the context is always existence in some form or other.

 

 

That isn't nothing by any stretch always. There's still volume in the empty cookie jar and the potential to store cookies, both of which are something.

 

 

Yes that's the point. It's like trying to imagine not having any sensory input what so ever - as in deep sleep or when we're dead. I guess we naturally imagine these states like an empty darkness, but an empty darkness is still something.

 

When you use the word nothing, what does it mean?

[shadowhawk]

 

Consider that something has the property of not being something else is not very practical but valid in any way. Nor is practical to consider a number x has the property of being "x + 1 -1" (you can use the rules of mathematics to generalize these properties).
You can also synthesize the infinite properties that has something of not to be something different not considering this as properties but consider it as a rule; cat is not a dog = Property... cat is not a glass = Property... or you can say cat is not nothing different that cat = Rule...

Science sets properties where this is relevant to the study of something; although valid, considering that something has the property of not being something else, it is a misuse for the purpose of establishing properties.

But as is say before... It is not my purpose to discuss the nature of the term "property" or "properties"...

About Universe or Nothing...
The universe cannot start form P.Nothing becuse P.Nothing cannot produce matter or energy, it is logical that there is no evidence that the beginning was from P.Nothing.

For me "Why there is a universe instead of P.Nothing?" it's a reasonable question; and if I have to accept that the universe has always been rather there (in one form or another), why is configured in this way? Why it has the actual amount of matter and energy and not more or less?

 

Well regardless if they're practical or not, you can make an infinite number of axioms according to the incompleteness theorem which means there are an infinite number of generalizations that could be applied.

And I agree that the universe doesn't start from nothing because nothing isn't a physically valid concept worth considering.

 

"something has the property of not being something else, it is a misuse for the purpose of establishing properties."

 

I'm sure you'd agree then that nothing is a misuse or flawed concept because it is defined as the absence of something, or not something if you will.

 

The better question is why would there be nothing rather than something? The question itself reflects and inherent paradox however because nothing couldn't exist in place of something--if nothing exists then it is a thing and it exists and is therefore something. There couldn't be nothing instead of something.

 

The incompleteness theorem does not teach you have an infinite number of axioms or generalizations.  There never have been an infinite number of either.  Nothing is not a physical concept but as long as you continue to insist it is physical, you will keep making th same error.
Why is there existence rather than non existence?

[Blink]

 

Yes that's the point. It's like trying to imagine not having any sensory input what so ever - as in deep sleep or when we're dead. I guess we naturally imagine these states like an empty darkness, but an empty darkness is still something.

 

When you use the word nothing, what does it mean?

 

 

No-thing. The absence of things.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Yes that's the point. It's like trying to imagine not having any sensory input what so ever - as in deep sleep or when we're dead. I guess we naturally imagine these states like an empty darkness, but an empty darkness is still something.

 

When you use the word nothing, what does it mean?

 

 

No-thing. The absence of things.
 

 

Yes!!!!

[Blink]

So why is there existence? I can't imagine. A cause would imply that there was existence before existence.

Edited by Blink, 25 November 2014 - 10:49 PM.

[shadowhawk]

At least there is not caused physical existence which everything physical is caused.

[StevesPetRat]

Do you think nothing is physical?

Nothing is physical which is not also mathematical; what you would call "physical" is a small subset of all possible mathematical / logical constructs. People say mathematics provides a model of reality, but in fact that is looking at it backwards.

I used to be a theoretical physicist; I don't know whether that strengthens or weakens my position.

[shadowhawk]

In what way, given "no-thing," is it physical?  If it was physical it would be some-thing.

[serp777]

 

 

Consider that something has the property of not being something else is not very practical but valid in any way. Nor is practical to consider a number x has the property of being "x + 1 -1" (you can use the rules of mathematics to generalize these properties).
You can also synthesize the infinite properties that has something of not to be something different not considering this as properties but consider it as a rule; cat is not a dog = Property... cat is not a glass = Property... or you can say cat is not nothing different that cat = Rule...

Science sets properties where this is relevant to the study of something; although valid, considering that something has the property of not being something else, it is a misuse for the purpose of establishing properties.

But as is say before... It is not my purpose to discuss the nature of the term "property" or "properties"...

About Universe or Nothing...
The universe cannot start form P.Nothing becuse P.Nothing cannot produce matter or energy, it is logical that there is no evidence that the beginning was from P.Nothing.

For me "Why there is a universe instead of P.Nothing?" it's a reasonable question; and if I have to accept that the universe has always been rather there (in one form or another), why is configured in this way? Why it has the actual amount of matter and energy and not more or less?

 

Well regardless if they're practical or not, you can make an infinite number of axioms according to the incompleteness theorem which means there are an infinite number of generalizations that could be applied.

And I agree that the universe doesn't start from nothing because nothing isn't a physically valid concept worth considering.

 

"something has the property of not being something else, it is a misuse for the purpose of establishing properties."

 

I'm sure you'd agree then that nothing is a misuse or flawed concept because it is defined as the absence of something, or not something if you will.

 

The better question is why would there be nothing rather than something? The question itself reflects and inherent paradox however because nothing couldn't exist in place of something--if nothing exists then it is a thing and it exists and is therefore something. There couldn't be nothing instead of something.

 

The incompleteness theorem does not teach you have an infinite number of axioms or generalizations.  There never have been an infinite number of either.  Nothing is not a physical concept but as long as you continue to insist it is physical, you will keep making th same error.
Why is there existence rather than non existence?

 

Well you don't really have a good understanding of mathematics.

 

Many important theories, most significantly first-order Peano arithmetic, and ZFC, the most commonly used axiomatic set theory, have an infinite number of axioms. So does the theory of algebraically closed fields.

 

If there aren't an infinite number of axioms you can use, and therefore combinations, then how many are there? The incompleteness theorem is then related the fact that there are an infinite number of axioms you can use--no complicated system . 

 

Nothing is indeed a physical concept. It can be quantified as the absence of something. That means it has zero things. If it's quantifiable with numbers it means it's physical. Like roughness, or fractal dimension, or conductivity. 

 

"Why is there existence rather than non existence?"

 

Again a bad question. Non existence couldn't exist in place of existence--that would be completely illogical. And again non existence still has the property of being separate from existence, which means it would be part of existence by nature of having properties and is thus a contradiction.

 

WHy would there be non existence instead of existence?

 

OR

 

How could there be non existence instead of existence?

[serp777]

 

 

 

It is true you can’t conceive nothing if you conceive of it as something.  Nothing is not something to be conceived.    However we can conceive of non existence and talk about it otherwise this conversation would be nonsense.  The question does not ask why there is one thing or another but why there is anything at all.

Nothing is a handy concept when talking about the absence of things within a context. For example - there is nothing in the cookie jar. So in this case we conceive nothing as an empty cookie jar. But I don't think we can conceive the absence of existence itself. We always need a context, and the context is always existence in some form or other.

 

 

That isn't nothing by any stretch always. There's still volume in the empty cookie jar and the potential to store cookies, both of which are something.

 

 

Yes that's the point. It's like trying to imagine not having any sensory input what so ever - as in deep sleep or when we're dead. I guess we naturally imagine these states like an empty darkness, but an empty darkness is still something.

 

Right well I was mainly agreeing with you. Trying to imagine absolute nothing is impossible because anything that you imagine requires form or dimension. How does one imagine something that has no dimensions--time or volume-- or the absence of blackness? You would also have to be able to imagine something less than infinitesimally small, and imagining something infinitesimally small is easier than imagining nothing. And imagining something infinitesimally small would be a huge feat. I have trouble accurately imagining a nano meter. 

[serp777]

In what way, given "no-thing," is it physical?  If it was physical it would be some-thing.

Because it has a property NUMBER OF THINGS = 0

 

Just like conductivity = 0 is a physical thing that means there can't be any current flowing through the corresponding material. 

 

Anything quantifiable is a physical property.

[DukeNukem]

It's so completely absurd to think that the first thing to exist was--boom!--an almighty god.

It's about fifty gazillion times more reasonable to believe that the first thing to exists was--boom!--a hot dense universe with no intelligence or purpose.

[cats_lover]

It's so completely absurd to think that the first thing to exist was--boom!--an almighty god.

It's about fifty gazillion times more reasonable to believe that the first thing to exists was--boom!--a hot dense universe with no intelligence or purpose.

 

This discussion is not about religion, although I understand that because nature of the question and because it is posted on the forum of spirituality and religion, it can be interpreted as an attempt to pro-religion basis.

For me it is logical to wonder why there is something rather than nothing (without any intention to make more or less solid the idea that the universe was created).

If you have the conception that the universe began with a "boom", you dont wonder why that "boom" existed rather that nothing?
 

[StevesPetRat]

In what way, given "no-thing," is it physical? If it was physical it would be some-thing.

Oh, more semantics problems. I understood your question to mean "Don't you think anything is physical?" and my response was to mean "Everything we call 'physical' is a subset of a vastly larger mathematical domain."

I actually think it's pointless to discuss "nothing", as the word itself is a descriptor for an element of the empty set and can therefore have any property whatsoever. Nothing is physical, nothing is abstract, nothing is a tower of pink elephants.

[serp777]

 

It's so completely absurd to think that the first thing to exist was--boom!--an almighty god.

It's about fifty gazillion times more reasonable to believe that the first thing to exists was--boom!--a hot dense universe with no intelligence or purpose.

 

This discussion is not about religion, although I understand that because nature of the question and because it is posted on the forum of spirituality and religion, it can be interpreted as an attempt to pro-religion basis.

For me it is logical to wonder why there is something rather than nothing (without any intention to make more or less solid the idea that the universe was created).

If you have the conception that the universe began with a "boom", you dont wonder why that "boom" existed rather that nothing?
 

 

How could nothing have existed instead of a "boom" though? It wouldn't make sense for nothing to exist because if it exists than it is something, which therefore isn't actually nothing.

Edited by serp777, 28 November 2014 - 12:42 PM.

[shadowhawk]

That is the point, Nothing does not physically exist, even a boom.  The physical world begins to exist and is caused.

[shadowhawk]

It's so completely absurd to think that the first thing to exist was--boom!--an almighty god.

It's about fifty gazillion times more reasonable to believe that the first thing to exists was--boom!--a hot dense universe with no intelligence or purpose.

 

Intelligence and purpose do exist in this world.  As for being reasonable, you still haven't answered the question in the topic.
 

[serp777]

That is the point, Nothing does not physically exist, even a boom.  The physical world begins to exist and is caused.

Nothing is theoretically physical. It is quantifiable NUMBER of THINGS = 0. So if nothing can't exist, then it isn't a valid concept. The question  of why is there something rather than nothing is invalid since nothing couldn't be rather than something. 

 

 In order for cause and effect to take place you need time, and there was no time before the universe started so there was no cause. 

 

It's so completely absurd to think that the first thing to exist was--boom!--an almighty god.

It's about fifty gazillion times more reasonable to believe that the first thing to exists was--boom!--a hot dense universe with no intelligence or purpose.

 

Intelligence and purpose do exist in this world.  As for being reasonable, you still haven't answered the question in the topic.
 

 

Intelligence definitely exists but you haven't shown that purpose does  exist. Purpose is all a matter of perspective so saying absolute purpose exists is a fallacy.