Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 166 of 366 (627649)
08-03-2011 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by tubbyparticle
08-02-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
tubbyparticle writes:
Nothing defines reality when nothing else defines it.
Isn't reality a thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by tubbyparticle, posted 08-02-2011 7:34 PM tubbyparticle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 8:15 AM bluegenes has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 167 of 366 (627651)
08-03-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 7:49 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
Isn't reality a thing?
What do you mean by "reality"? If you mean "all the things that are real" then it obviously only has a referential if at least one thing exists. If you ,dan something more abstract, why would you think that it is a "thing"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 7:49 AM bluegenes has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 168 of 366 (627652)
08-03-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 7:45 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
I'd ask you to explain what you mean, but it does look as if you are begging the question in exactly the way I suggest. Nothing is not a thing, therefore to talk about it existing or not, as a thing - as you seem to be doing - is obviously wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 7:45 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 9:13 AM PaulK has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 169 of 366 (627654)
08-03-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 7:45 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
If I answer:
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" with:
"Because nothing, by definition, cannot be."
Is there anything wrong with my answer?
Yes. See posts #147 and #149.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 7:45 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 9:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 170 of 366 (627657)
08-03-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
08-03-2011 8:19 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
I'd ask you to explain what you mean, but it does look as if you are begging the question in exactly the way I suggest. Nothing is not a thing, therefore to talk about it existing or not, as a thing - as you seem to be doing - is obviously wrong.
The O.P. question asks about nothing's existence. So, doesn't your point apply to the question, and doesn't my answer agree with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 8:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 9:20 AM bluegenes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 366 (627660)
08-03-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 9:13 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
The O.P. question asks about nothing's existence. So, doesn't your point apply to the question, and doesn't my answer agree with you?
I would suggest that you are being overly pedantic here and misinterpreting the question as a result. We can only make sense of the question if we accept that nothing is not a thing. Therefore my point does not apply to the question if it is properly understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 9:13 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 9:30 AM PaulK has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 172 of 366 (627661)
08-03-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
08-03-2011 8:38 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Adequate writes:
Can there be a complete absence of unicorns in my back yard? By your reasoning, no. "Complete absence", you would tell us, "indicates a lack of a subject", and "be", you say "indicates the presence of a subject" ... so an absence of unicorns cannot be.
Well then, where are the unicorns?
You're just confusing yourself with grammar.
There can certainly be an absence of anything specific in your backyard.
So where can the absence of everything be, other than nowhere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 8:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 10:45 AM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 173 of 366 (627662)
08-03-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by PaulK
08-03-2011 9:20 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Have you tried giving a coherent answer to the question in the way that you understand it? And I certainly accept that nothing is not a thing.
Try an answer:
Why, Paul, is there something rather than nothing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 9:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 11:08 AM bluegenes has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 366 (627671)
08-03-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
There can certainly be an absence of anything specific in your backyard.
So where can the absence of everything be, other than nowhere?
Everywhere? Like the absence of unicorns?
Of course, if there was no space, then everywhere and nowhere would be synonymous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 9:21 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 11:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 366 (627675)
08-03-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 9:30 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Sure, I have. Aside from the attempts to show that it is logically impossible that no things exist (which seem to generally rely on the error of treating nothing as a thing) the only possible answer seems to be to appeal to a brute fact. As I explained right back at the start of the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 9:30 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 11:23 AM PaulK has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 176 of 366 (627676)
08-03-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
08-03-2011 10:45 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Dr Adequate writes:
Everywhere? Like the absence of unicorns?
Everywhere is somewhere (or lots of somewheres), and somewhere is something.
Of course, if there was no space, then everywhere and nowhere would be synonymous.
Space (and any place) is something. So:
Only nowhere can there be an absence of everything.
Time is something, so, even better:
Only nowhere and never can there be an absence of everything.
Can we make a case for "necessity" as the answer to the O.P. question?
I think it's beginning to look like it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 10:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 11:34 AM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 177 of 366 (627679)
08-03-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
08-03-2011 11:08 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
Sure, I have. Aside from the attempts to show that it is logically impossible that no things exist (which seem to generally rely on the error of treating nothing as a thing) the only possible answer seems to be to appeal to a brute fact.
I'll certainly agree that nothing, by definition, is not a thing, but no-thing. I've been treating "existence" as a state of things. So there doesn't seem to be a need to treat "nothing" as a thing. Quite the opposite.
Nothing is not a thing, and therefore cannot have the state of existence by definition. Something is necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 11:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2011 11:40 AM bluegenes has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 178 of 366 (627682)
08-03-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 11:13 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Space (and any place) is something. So:
Only nowhere can there be an absence of everything.
Time is something, so, even better:
Only nowhere and never can there be an absence of everything.
And if there was, it would be true to say: "Everywhere and at all times there is an absence of everything." The fact that these superficially look like opposites is that you are used to a situation in which space and time do exist, and your use of language reflects that.
(Consider the fact that in logic it is correct to say both that all unicorns are pink and that no unicorns are pink --- so long as unicorns don't exist.)
Like Catholic Scientist, you are tacitly taking the syntax and semantics of the English language to be significant to the question. But it really isn't. It would not in fact be self-contradictory for there to be no time or no space.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 11:13 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 179 of 366 (627684)
08-03-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by bluegenes
08-03-2011 11:23 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
I'll certainly agree that nothing, by definition, is not a thing, but no-thing. I've been treating "existence" as a state of things. So there doesn't seem to be a need to treat "nothing" as a thing. Quite the opposite.
Nothing is not a thing, and therefore cannot have the state of existence by definition. Something is necessary.

Treating existence as a property is another mistake, which allows defining things into existence. Worse, your argument is self-contradictory, because it explicitly denies that nothing is a thing while implicitly assuming that it is. If nothing is not a thing then there is no need for it to exist as such. This is the point of the post starting this subthread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 11:23 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 12:57 PM PaulK has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 180 of 366 (627689)
08-03-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dr Adequate
08-03-2011 11:34 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
Dr Adequate writes:
bluegenes writes:
Only nowhere and never can there be an absence of everything.
And if there was, it would be true to say: "Everywhere and at all times there is an absence of everything." The fact that these superficially look like opposites is that you are used to a situation in which space and time do exist, and your use of language reflects that.
Carry that thinking through, and it would also be true to say in those hypothetical circumstances "everywhere and at all times there is everything". So, in nothingness, if nowhere becomes everywhere, and no time becomes all times, no-things become everything.
Perhaps the problem is that you phrased the O.P. question in space-time language, where things "be", so we have to contemplate the paradox of the being/existence of no-things.
Like Catholic Scientist, you are tacitly taking the syntax and semantics of the English language to be significant to the question. But it really isn't. It would not in fact be self-contradictory for there to be no time or no space.
I think that the same problems would exist in all languages, but that you'd have a good point if you said that human languages come from beings in space-time, and we may automatically have a problem in discussing true nothingness.
Nowhere men (all the men who exist in nothingness) would have all the necessary words (all the words there) to describe all of it, of course, and all the time necessary to contemplate everything that's there.
And all the unicorns would be pink (as well non-pink) as you point out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 11:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024