How can anything come from nothing

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
That is the difference between 'non-existence' - which is abstract and Ø - which is not.

If you look in ANY Webster's dictionary, both the abstract of 'non-existence' and the mathematical term 'Zero' are listed as definitions. There are two official connotations. If you wish to recognize only one, that is your privilege, but in communicating with other individuals, it is often necessary to recognize both.

I do, of course, recognize that people commonly wish to refer to 0 or empty sets...even empty space, as though it were nothing. However, in philosophy, it is always best to have your semantics completely clear from the start, and the semantics of "nothing" (the word) are rather clear: If there is anything there, anything at all, it isn't nothing (which seems so obvious to me, but I have done the extra research to make sure, and semantics and etymology seem to agree with me).

Thus, if there is something there (be it an empty set (which is something), the word "nothing" (which is also something), or the number 0 (which is clearly something)), it becomes both incorrect and misleading to use the word "nothing" to refer to it...of course, if I were to ask you what was inside the empty set or the empty space, then "nothing" would be the correct answer, but if I can refer to the set or word as something then it is incorrect to also refer to them as "nothing".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Been through this before with you. Nothing does not do the referring - The concept does.

But the concept can't refer unless it has something (note: something) to refer to.

You're twisting this one too. If I say - (I defined nothing) I didn't say that I hadn't, but that I had, and if I replace hadn't with had as it should be. It would still read wrong, because now it would read ( I had defined anything). It should read by your standards {I had defined not anything as a thing}. I would personally rather just say ( I defined nothing as a thing). I'll buy both, but prefer to say nothing - It reads better.

You have mis-interpreted the E.i.N.S., if you were to say that you "have defined nothing", you are saying "I have defined not anything" which is semantically equal to saying "I have not defined anything". The dispersal of the "not" and the "anything" among the sentence are a matter of grammar and maintenance of meaning, you can't always put the two words right next to each other, but together they replace the use of the word "nothing" altogether.

You apparently say it's impossible have a thing of nothing. I say it is possible. I will agree to disagree. You should too, because this merry go round is making us dizzy.

Not just yet. What I'm asking you to be is reasonable. I'll break down the deductive reasoning on this particular issue (of a "thing of nothing") for you:

("P" stands for "proposition", "C" stands for "conclusion)

P1: The word "nothing" is a composite of the terms "no" and "thing".
P2: A person may either refer to a thing or refer to no thing at all, but cannot do both at the same time (this stands to reason, since, if you refer to one, you disqualify reference to the other).
C: Therefore there can be no "thing" of "nothing".

 

[UltraPi1]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
So you are implying that elementary particles, including fermions like electrons and quarks, are made of photons. What arguments or evidence can you offer for such a view?

Yes that would be the implication. I offer no proof at this time other than to give details of the overall model - Such as what a photon is, how it propagates, how they interact.

Heres a photon at rest. Even though I know there is no such thing as a photon at rest. Nevertheless here it is. It is the simplest form there is. If you can think of something simpler - I'm all ears.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg

 

[UltraPi1]

Mentat

You offer a complete definition of nothing. From my standpoint - This is impossible to do in the absense of a concept. The best you can hope for is a quantative measure of nothing, and in doing so ,,, we find an infinity of measure is required for completion. I.E. The definition of nothing takes forever, for it is the definition that makes it real. I contend that we are all a part of that ongoing definition.

Nothing = Not any thing
You use the word thing in your definition of nothing - So does the dictionary. This is a contradiction. I have no problem with this if nothing is to exist or not exist. Existence requires this contradiction. Non-Existence requires this contradiction. I don't wish to discuss nothing on the Non-Existent level - What would be the point other than to point out nothing on the existent level.

You are here ,,,,, Not nowhere.
You are here as the result of the definition of nowhere.
You are nothing in a quantative measure.
You exist as one measure of nothing.

I am happy to discuss the existence of nothing through conceptual means.
I cannot and will not discuss that which does not exist by any means whatsoever in the context of existence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Mentat

You offer a complete definition of nothing. From my standpoint - This is impossible to do in the absense of a concept.

Wrong. I do not offer a definition of nothing, but to the word "nothing".

Here's an exercise for you:

What is this: "cheese"

And what is this: {1, 2, 3, 4...}


Is the first one actually cheese? No. It is the word "cheese". In the second one, did I actually write every natural number? No. That's simply a set of all natural numbers.

Now, the word "cheese" is something, and so is that which it refers to (thus, two distinct entities). The set of all natural numbers is something, and so is each natural number (an infinite amount of disctinct entities).

So, if I say the word "nothing", I have said something...that word is something. And if I use symbol for the empty set, which doesn't seem to work on this computer, then I will have used something...the empty set is something.

The difference between this word and this set, is that the word doesn't refer to anything at all (by its very semantic nature) and the set doesn't contain anything. Thus, it is logical to say that the word refers to nothing, but it is equal in meaning and logic to say that it "doesn't refer to anything". That's why the E.i.N.S. works.

It is logical to say that the empty set "contains nothing", but it is equal in meaning and logic to say that it "doesn't contain anything". Just another example of the E.i.N.S.

Thus, every time you use the word "nothing", it should be OK for me to re-write the sentence, without changing the meaning, under the terms of the E.i.N.S.

And, as you can see, I have not defined "nothing", but simply given and understanding of the fact that that word doesn't refer to anything.

The best you can hope for is a quantative measure of nothing, and in doing so ,,, we find an infinity of measure is required for completion. I.E. The definition of nothing takes forever, for it is the definition that makes it real. I contend that we are all a part of that ongoing definition.

But definitions do not make something real. I can define a unicorn, but that doesn't make it real. Sure I will get a picture in my head of that which I've been taught to be a "unicorn", but there really is no such thing.

Nothing = Not any thing
You use the word thing in your definition of nothing - So does the dictionary.

No I don't. I didn't even define "nothing", I jus gave an alternate way of saying any sentence in which you would normally use the word "nothing", which offers insight into the fact that "nothing" doesn't refer to anything.

You are here ,,,,, Not nowhere.
You are here as the result of the definition of nowhere.

Where do you get this from? That seems like the largest non-sequiter you've made yet. If I am here, then by default I am not nowhere (since "nowhere" refers to the absence of place), but I would be here regardless of whether "nowhere" was defined or not.

You are nothing in a quantative measure.

I am not anything in a quantitative measure? That's not true, I am quarks, leptons, and spacetime in quantitative measure.

I am happy to discuss the existence of nothing through conceptual means.
I cannot and will not discuss that which does not exist by any means whatsoever in the context of existence.

But that which "nothing" refers to does not exist, and that is what you are choosing to discuss.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
I do, of course, recognize that people commonly wish to refer to 0 or empty sets...even empty space, as though it were nothing. However, in philosophy, it is always best to have your semantics completely clear from the start, and the semantics of "nothing" (the word) are rather clear: If there is anything there, anything at all, it isn't nothing (which seems so obvious to me, but I have done the extra research to make sure, and semantics and etymology seem to agree with me).

Thus, if there is something there (be it an empty set (which is something), the word "nothing" (which is also something), or the number 0 (which is clearly something)), it becomes both incorrect and misleading to use the word "nothing" to refer to it...of course, if I were to ask you what was inside the empty set or the empty space, then "nothing" would be the correct answer, but if I can refer to the set or word as something then it is incorrect to also refer to them as "nothing".

APPLAUSE ! !

Then the correct word and definition for 'nothing' in its abstract and undefined connotation is - "                ".

I TOTALLY agree.

 

[UltraPi1]

Mentat
I'll repeat this - one last time.


I understand everything you are saying.

I will also say you will never understand what I am saying. Discussion with you regarding this subject is over.

 

[UltraPi1]

Messiah

APPLAUSE ! !

Trust me - he doesn't get it the way you just got it from his post.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
APPLAUSE ! !

Then the correct word and definition for 'nothing' in its abstract and undefined connotation is - "                ".

I TOTALLY agree.

"Nothing" is the word, were you even paying attention to my post? "Nothing" is the word, and there is no definition, aside from "the absence of all things". Please try to understand what I post before responding.

 

[UltraPi1]

As I was saying.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
"Nothing" is the word, were you even paying attention to my post? "Nothing" is the word, and there is no definition, aside from "the absence of all things". Please try to understand what I post before responding.

I think you are missing the point.
The phenomenon of existence did not 'begin' with Ø or 'nothing' - and then become 'something'. Existence is eternal. The nature of that existence is that for every logical value there is an opposite equivalent. Ø or 'nothing' never DID exist - only its logical equivalent

. . . of course UNLESS you want to consider it in the infinitive abstract, in which the size of any finite entity has a relative value of Ø (anything/infinity) and every position within an infinite Universe is its center (has a relative positional value of Ø), so since its qualitative value is also Ø relarive to infinity 'NOTHING' does exist.

 

[elibol]

well, i think there is confusion on what nothing really is->

i think nothing should be used with this pseudo or not definition when used in this context-> nothing humans percieve as in no physical anything, no particles, no waves, and maybe now no energy. so truly nothing cannot be as far as human perception goes... therefore whatever was 'before' the bb couldn't have possibly been anything comprehensible to humans.

besides, time was created with the bb in the bb theory (hence space-time). this is how it works in-> you really cannot say 'before' the bb... because your ability to distinguish one event from the next is non existent...

so there is no movement of time, or atleast the necessity of it is absent.