How can anything come from nothing

[Arc_Central]

Opposition is an absolute requirement.


Non-Existence carries no meaning in the absence of Existence.

If the universe is Existence - There will be an opposition to it. I.E. Non-Existence. It is this difference that provides the definition, but there is a little more to it than that. At least as far as we are concerned. We don't Exist in a Non-Existent world. We are within the boundries of the Existent world, and to Exist within those boundries ... a difference must be noted between finite entities. These finite entities are the geometric equivalents of the initial beginning construct. The beginning construct is our universe. In the beginning - The universe cannot move in relation to anything else ... There isn't anything else ... so it expands into the infinite sea of Non-Existence. This expansion is an ongoing definition of what isn't. The product of this definition is finite entities (geometric equivalents of what initially is). These finite entities do move in relation another thing. It is this motion that provides the difference that is notable. I.E. Something slaps you in the face, and yet another thing slaps you in the face an instant later. This is what provides our understanding of things.

Non-Existence is not in our neck of the woods. There are only things, but if there are only things - how is it wee can establish a difference to be noted? The answer comes with motion (time) The separation of one event to another.

In regards to nothing? There are several definitions to it. In relation to the universe - Nothing is what the universe is made of, and it is the concept of it that makes us whole, and it is these concepts that slap us in the face.

 

[Sikz]

Eh, you are quite right about what you said in your previous post. On a few of my points, however, I obviously did not communicate my meaning effeciently.

I said:

Hmmmm... I think I'll start by asking how you know that there is SOMETHING now. How do you? How do you know that anything is anything?

By definition, you say. We are postulating that the universe is "something" in order to find the identity of another entity (not really an entity, but you shall have to bear with the inadequacy of language to describe "nothing"), "nothing". My comment was not directed towards finding the identity of "nothing" so much as simply analyzing our postulate itself. A=A only if you accept the postulate of the "Reflexive Property". While I cannot dispute this, I can dispute our postulate that the universe is "something".

I also said:

Now, we can agree, I presume, that empty space is nothing?

The next sentence mentioned my true meaning, but I should have noted that. I meant that we can agree that infinite empty space is nothing- if the entire universe is comprised only of empty space then the entire universe is nothing, for empty space can only be defined in relation to a "thing", to non-empty space. Obviously a square foot of perfect vacuum is "something", but if the netire universe consists only of perfect vacuum, the entire universe is "nothing".

Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist- for to exist it would be something. Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe. The universe would appear to have always existed.

Your comments on this are entirely correct. "Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe." was intended to mean "We cannot say that before the universe an entity called nothing existed." The universe would appear to have always existed because before it there wasn't anything- there was nothing.

While you are also correct about "nothing existed bofore the universe" implying simply an absence of things (rather than a presence of nothing), the entire point of this thread was finding the identity of "nothing" (or the lack thereof).

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Sikz
A=A only if you accept the postulate of the "Reflexive Property". While I cannot dispute this, I can dispute our postulate that the universe is "something".

The universe meets what our concept of a thing is, doesn't it? Try to list the properties of an object we would consider to be a thing, then compare it the properties we think the physical universe actually has.

The next sentence mentioned my true meaning, but I should have noted that. I meant that we can agree that infinite empty space is nothing- if the entire universe is comprised only of empty space then the entire universe is nothing, for empty space can only be defined in relation to a "thing", to non-empty space.

Keep in mind that space is only a property of the gravitational field. In an empty universe, a volume of space is still defined by the geometric relations of the field. To simplify, the field can be described as nothing but three sets of field lines. Each physical event has a corresponding geometric configuration. Empty space could be seen in terms of flat field lines.

Obviously a square foot of perfect vacuum is "something", but if the netire universe consists only of perfect vacuum, the entire universe is "nothing".

It is a thing in the ontological sense, given that it would exist.

Your comments on this are entirely correct. "Therefore we cannot say that nothing existed before the universe." was intended to mean "We cannot say that before the universe an entity called nothing existed." The universe would appear to have always existed because before it there wasn't anything- there was nothing.

That's true, but the english language is often a problem here. Instead of taking nothing to be a negative, the brain refies it to be something in it's own right. No wonder so much confusion has arisen over something that doesn't exist.

While you are also correct about "nothing existed bofore the universe" implying simply an absence of things (rather than a presence of nothing), the entire point of this thread was finding the identity of "nothing" (or the lack thereof).

As I said, nothing is a negative used to express negation. It doesn't have an identity outside this context.

 

[Sikz]

It is a thing in the ontological sense, given that it would exist.

But WOULD it exist? The only way it could be observed would by by changing its nature, by letting photons or something in. Even imagining it gives it properties that it doesn't have, for by imagining it we imagine it from a viewpoint- and there can be no viewpoints within it since nothing exists in it TO view.

It's like if you have a totally closed system that takes up no space and absorbs no energy and affects nothing outside of itself. It cannot be taken for granted that the system exists at all- in fact most people would probably state that it does not.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Eh

Originally posted by wolram
i agree to all of the above except, space owing its exsistence
to the field. how can you have a field without space for it
to exsist in?


Why would it need outside space to exist in? Logically, it need not. It goes against intuition, but if we think in terms of logic there isn't a problem.

I may be wrong, but mathematically a field is a function of space and time. So if there's no space what's left of the field?

 

[Zantra]

Only in philosophy can you find 4 pages of NOTHING

But seriously, the bottom line of all this discussion is that we do not know. I'm no more right in saying there is a something, than anyone else is in saying there is nothing.

 

[Arc_Central]

A dictionary will tell you that nothing is the absence of a thing. The problem with that is we must know what a thing is to understand the meaning of nothing. Yer in a bit of a quandry when you discuss the beginning of the universe, because yer job ... should you choose to accept it is to make a universe not knowing what a thing is. A blank slate requires that you remove yourself from the picture also.

What to do ... What to do ... What to do

Removing yourself leaves you with no way in or out of a pure state of nothing.

There are no options.

This leaves you with the impossiblity to the state of nothing, and since this is so, and we are here.

We can't begin with nothing in an absolute sense.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
I may be wrong, but mathematically a field is a function of space and time. So if there's no space what's left of the field?

The gravitational field is different from other fields like the EM. Those fields are just a distribution of some force throughout each point in spacetime, but the gravitational field (not Newtons) is spacetime itself.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Sikz
But WOULD it exist? The only way it could be observed would by by changing its nature, by letting photons or something in. Even imagining it gives it properties that it doesn't have, for by imagining it we imagine it from a viewpoint- and there can be no viewpoints within it since nothing exists in it TO view.

A line or plane still exists whether we observe it or not, ignoring the silly assumptions of extreme idealism. And as I said, even in an empty universe space is still defned by the geometric relations of the field. Flat spacetime shouldn't have any less of an ontological status than curved spacetime.

 

[Arc_Central]

The gravitational field is different from other fields like the EM. Those fields are just a distribution of some force throughout each point in spacetime, but the gravitational field (not Newtons) is spacetime itself.

These fields may be different in some ways , and the same in other ways. In fact they may be the same field. The difference may only be the meathod by which they propogate.

Although I may not disagree that a gravitational field is spacetime. How is it you know it is? Please explain.

Given that fields in general is a foggy subject. Perhaps you could shed a lttle light on the subject.

 

[Eh]

It's just something that comes out of GR. Any notion of distance is defined as a property of the field, and so it follows that if the theory is true, then space may have no independent existence. This is not proof, as it is possible that the gravitational field does sit on a backdrop of some absolute space, somewhat like icing on a cake. But this backdrop of space is completely redundant. If everything can be defined in terms of the field, the simplest explanation is that space and the field are inseperable.

But the debate over whether space has independent existence has a long history. Modern physics seems to support Descartes notion that space only exists if there is something present in it.

 

[gcn_zelda]

Is there even such thing as nothing? Everything is something. Even nothing is something.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by gcn_zelda
Is there even such thing as nothing? Everything is something. Even nothing is something.

I refer you to the first post of this dusty old thread.

 

[wolram]

all these words of wisdom have come from a brain, obviously
not all brains are connected the same way, that is a good
thing it inspiers origonal thinking.
it seems this thread could go round in circles for the
life of humankind may we let it RIP?

thankyou all .

 

[pace]

Originally posted by THANOS
nothing exist but we can't comprehend it. So trying to explain it is meaningless.

nothing doesn't exist, isn't that more reasonable and explainable ?

Does that mean that it doesn't exist(that it's only substance everywhere), or does that mean that it's vacuum (as I from what I understand, is your oppinion) ? Should it end in no words, or a difficult realization ?

To say that nothing exist, we only think or feel it does, is imo unecessary scepticism. We clearly feel, see, taste, hear, think existence all the time.


I'm tempted to say I don't believe in true vacuum, that substance is everywhere. Saying that nothing is a little more than nothing and is a some form as Vacuum just make less sense than say that nothing is nothing and doesn't exist, existence reigns. (also infinity and eternity because that there somehow is a wall of stop somewhere makes less sense that there should be something behind that wall)
Is that interesting ?

 

[Eh]

He isn't saying we don't exist, or that there isn't anything that does. Instead, he is just making the logical fallacy of reifying the zero.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Eh
He isn't saying we don't exist,

Oh I'm sorry, the middle pharagraph was for somebody else said. I understood his sentence as that he believed in true vacuum.

(Thanks for clarifying)

 

[Eh]

What's wrong with a true vacuum? The concept is at least logically consistent.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Eh
What's wrong with a true vacuum? The concept is at least logically consistent.

As I said, that nothing should be a little more than nothing: true vacuum. Makes less sense to me than just saying: nothing isn't there, substance is.

0 = 0
,
nothing=nothing
,
nothing= ... = don't agree

but:

... = agree.


Thus nothing should necessarily end in: ... (no words, no mathematics, nothing) We logically say a lot of stuff, we never really say nothing. And we've never experienced nothing, even the air around us was oxygen as we learned. So it's logical and sensical.

 

[Eh]

What do you define to be a substance?

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Eh
What do you define to be a substance?

Another subject, np,

Everything. And of it we experience all sorts of modes and attributes. (Spinozistic)

Edit: Although I don't know how very interesting all this is. As Spinoza once said:

(IV)P67: A free man thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation on life, not on death.

 

[wolram]

look eminent people, very few have the stamina to keep up
with this thread, can you agree to disagree? i will always
be open minded on this subject, the crux of the matter is
lack of evidence, i hate the verbalism put up or shut up
but i think it applies here.
you are all unique.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by wolram
the crux of the matter is
lack of evidence

Yes, the lack of evidence for nothing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
nothing doesn't exist, isn't that more reasonable and explainable ?

Does that mean that it doesn't exist...

That what doesn't exist?

 

[quartodeciman]

nothing much

Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?

Please forgive one piece of nonsense:

Q: Which should one prefer, happiness or a sandwich?
A: A sandwich.
Q: Why?
A: Nothing is better than happiness.
Q: Agreed!
A: A sandwich is better than nothing.
Q: Wait a minute! :(
A: So, draw your own conclusion. :)
.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quartodeciman
Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?

Please forgive one piece of nonsense:

Q: Which should one prefer, happiness or a sandwich?
A: A sandwich.
Q: Why?
A: Nothing is better than happiness.
Q: Agreed!
A: A sandwich is better than nothing.
Q: Wait a minute! :(
A: So, draw your own conclusion. :)
.

What exactly is your point, quartodeciman?

 

[sepultallica]

man this thing is still going? i think the thread lost its productivity around page four.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sepultallica
man this thing is still going? i think the thread lost its productivity around page four.

It keeps going because people aren't listening to what Eh said on the first page!

 

[Zantra]

It's been somantics for the last 5 pages. For myself, I still do not accept that we KNOW there was nothing before BB. Perhaps something unlike anything we know, but not nothing. That's an assumption I"m not willing to make.

If there was nothing, I accept that there was nothing. But we do not know that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science does not know, cosmology does not know, of anything before the big bang. There are theories, but they have yet to be confirmed even as math, let alone with physical evidence.

Science does know, with a beautiful and rich and growing body of interlocking theory and evidence, what has happened since some epsilon time after the big bang.

 

[Arc_Central]

Turn the question around: how can nothing come from something?

Now yer talkin !

Nothing is the thing.

Nothings are the things.

Nothing as a thing must be finite.

An infinity of nothing is another story. It is undefined (not a thing) - Yet it is the source of the definition of one thing of nothing , and any number of things (nothings).

In a mathematical sense - Infinitely nothing over one nothing is the initial beginning of our universe. (One) being the conceptual understanding of nothing as a thing. I.E. The brains of the whole operation.

Nothing, one , and infinitely nothing are constants. They remain that way no matter when or where you are in the universe regardless of how many nothings there are in existence.

The thing is nothing, and it's the ones that count.





I can't help but do nothing - It's all there is.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Mentat
That what doesn't exist?

Excatly! Hello substance.

It isn't much scientific. But philosophicly the issue is more than just a semantic debate.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
It's been somantics for the last 5 pages. For myself, I still do not accept that we KNOW there was nothing before BB. Perhaps something unlike anything we know, but not nothing. That's an assumption I"m not willing to make.

If there was nothing, I accept that there was nothing. But we do not know that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fine, just remember that when you say "there was nothing" it is perfectly equivalent to "there wasn't anything". The semantic problems arise when people treat statement like "there was nothing" as though they meant "there was something called 'nothing'", which is just wrong.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Now yer talkin !

Nothing is the thing.

Nothings are the things.

Nothing as a thing must be finite.

An infinity of nothing is another story. It is undefined (not a thing) - Yet it is the source of the definition of one thing of nothing , and any number of things (nothings).

In a mathematical sense - Infinitely nothing over one nothing is the initial beginning of our universe. (One) being the conceptual understanding of nothing as a thing. I.E. The brains of the whole operation.

Nothing, one , and infinitely nothing are constants. They remain that way no matter when or where you are in the universe regardless of how many nothings there are in existence.

The thing is nothing, and it's the ones that count.





I can't help but do nothing - It's all there is.

Arc_Central, I strongly suggest you read this ASAP, your post is full of semantic errors (in fact, the concept behind the post, is itself a semantic error).

I mean no offense by this, I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
Excatly! Hello substance.

I don't understand what you mean. I asked "that what doesn't exist", because people have been referring to the word "nothing" as though it referred to something (which it obviously doesn't).

It isn't much scientific. But philosophicly the issue is more than just a semantic debate.

Not really. The fact that people are using the word "nothing" as though it referred to something is a semantic problem, and from it arises many seemingly substantial problems, which would not exist if it weren't for a semantic error in the premise.

 

[quartodeciman]

Mentat: What exactly is your point...?

No point intended.

Two items: an invitation to view the question in reverse; a humor dialogue, exemplifying the mistake described by the later replies of Mentat

(laughter is not required)

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Mentat


Not really.

Really, the discussion is philosophicly more than semantics. Parmenides(there is no empty space). Democrit, Lucretius and the atomists(said: reality=atoms and empty space. Beside some other talk about 'nothing'). Spinoza(and Descartes?) who denied vacuum(empty space). But after that it's pretty silent. It's not much of a talked about issue, no. Democrit's atomist theory has prooven very fruity, but it's been mostly denied by philosophers. Your negative semantic arguments also pushes itself towards my conclusion which I thought was funny, ergo my last comment.

 

[Arc_Central]

Arc_Central, I strongly suggest you read this ASAP, your post is full of semantic errors (in fact, the concept behind the post, is itself a semantic error).

I mean no offense by this, I'm just pointing it out.

No offence taken.

I may be in error, but I can't for the life of me see it. Nothing in the absolute sense is undefinable. The meaning in a dictionary requires that you know what a thing is to proffer an understanding, but nothing in the truist sense does not allow that option.

 

[quartodeciman]

How can nothing come from something?

Let's apply the Mentat translation:

How can no thing come from something?
or
How can any thing not come from something?
or
How can things not come from something?

Precisely inasmuch as any thing or things do(es) not come from some thing.

It isn't exactly a semantic mistake.

------
How can something come from nothing?

Let's apply the Mentat translation:

How can something come from no thing?
or
How can something not come from any thing?
or
How can something not come from things?

Precisely inasmuch as some thing does not come from any thing or things.

------

The next problem is dealing with 'come from'. Can any thing come from itself?

 

[THANOS]

whos on third base?

 

[Mentat]

quatodeciman, you have completely missed the point of the E.i.N.S., allow me to correct you:

Originally posted by quartodeciman
How can nothing come from something?

Let's apply the Mentat translation:

How can no thing come from something?
or
How can any thing not come from something?
or
How can things not come from something?

This was done completely wrong. Let's apply the actual Mentat translation:

"How can there not be anything coming from something?" is the actual translation of "How can nothing come from something?". If nothing is coming from it, then there isn't anything coming from it. The two statements are identical.

How can something come from nothing?

Let's apply the Mentat translation:

How can something come from no thing?
or
How can something not come from any thing?
or
How can something not come from things?

Again, completely wrong. Let's apply the actual Mentat translation:

"How can something not come from anything?" is the actual translation of "How can something come from nothing?". Notice how, in both of my actual translations, the meaning is not changed at all, but the word "nothing" isn't used to describe a thing (since it shouldn't be used that way).

The point of the E.i.N.S. is to eliminate foolish debates about what the word "nothing" refers to. The answer: it doesn't refer to anything (btw, "it doesn't refer to anything", when taken in backward E.i.N.S. = "it refers to nothing", which obviously what the word "nothing" refers to ).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
Really, the discussion is philosophicly more than semantics. Parmenides(there is no empty space). Democrit, Lucretius and the atomists(said: reality=atoms and empty space. Beside some other talk about 'nothing'). Spinoza(and Descartes?) who denied vacuum(empty space). But after that it's pretty silent. It's not much of a talked about issue, no. Democrit's atomist theory has prooven very fruity, but it's been mostly denied by philosophers. Your negative semantic arguments also pushes itself towards my conclusion which I thought was funny, ergo my last comment.

I don't understand what point you are trying to get at, pace. The issue of what "nothing" refers to (note: when I say "nothing" in scare-quotes, I am referring to the word "nothing", nothing more ) can become more than semantics in the eyes of those who have misunderstood it, but the issue really is a semantic one at its heart. If people would just apply the E.i.N.S. (which, btw, I don't think of as some genius break-through or anything, it's merely the logical consequence of thinking of the word "nothing" like your supposed to) to sentences such as "What is the internal nature of 'nothing'?" or "How could 'nothing' spawn something?", they would see that they make no sense at all...as per E.i.N.S., the become "What is the internal nature of that which isn't anything at all?" (in this case, it is obvious nonsense, since you cannot refer to "that" if it's nothing at all), and "How could something not be spawned from anything?", which is not so ridiculous a question, so much as it is unnecessary, since not every "something" was spawned from something else.

 

[quartodeciman]

If a designated thing came from one thing, then it didn't come from nothing.

If a designated thing came from multiple things, then it didn't come from nothing.

What cases are left out?

The designated thing didn't come from one thing and it didn't come from multiple things.

I guess it either didn't 'come from' at all or it must have come from 0 things.

------

The hot steam came from cold water, potassium permanganate and hydrogen peroxide. The hot steam didn't come from just one of these things.

What is the purpose of eliminating foolish debates?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quartodeciman
If a designated thing came from one thing, then it didn't come from nothing.

Right, since to "come from nothing" is equivalent to "not having come from anything".

If a designated thing came from multiple things, then it didn't come from nothing.

Obviously.

What cases are left out?

Those that didn't come from anything.

The designated thing didn't come from one thing and it didn't come from multiple things.

I guess it either didn't 'come from' at all or it must have come from 0 things.

Exactly...in fact the following are logically and semantically equivalent:

I didn't "come from" at all.
I didn't come from anything.
I came from 0 things (translated, "the amount of things that I came from is exactly 0", which means I didn't come from anything)
I came from nothing.

The hot steam came from cold water, potassium permanganate and hydrogen peroxide. The hot steam didn't come from just one of these things.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

What is the purpose of eliminating foolish debates?

To spare myself and others the frustration of having to repeat the same debates over and over and over again, when we could be progressing beyond them onto more fruitful endeavors.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by wolram
i have struggled with with theories for creation for one
reason, and that is they all start with something.
how can anything come from nothing, is nothing a meaningfull
word in creation theories?
i find it totaly ilogical that nothing exsisted befor
creation.
the best i can come up with for a psudo nothing is two
forces that cancel each other.
our exsistence must prove that absolute nothing is
imposible?

Time began (according to theory) with the big bang, as did space.

There was no time when the universe did not exist.

There is no nothing outside of existence for existence to come from.

There never was a time when there was no place;
There never is a place where there is no time;
There never was a time when there was no time;
There never is a place where there is no place.

- from I Just Made That Up, Pretty Cool Huh? by Mumeishi

 

[wolram]

this thing still going
how about giving a prize to the one that has the last word?
or is this the nearest we will get to perpetual motion

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wolram
this thing still going
how about giving a prize to the one that has the last word?
or is this the nearest we will get to perpetual motion

This is nothin'. You should see the "Why the bias against Materialism" thread. It's got over 50 pages, and there are still occasional responses to it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is nothin'. You should see the "Why the bias against Materialism" thread. It's got over 50 pages, and there are still occasional responses to it.

BTW, please note how when I said "this is nothing", it was immediately understood that that statement is exactly equivalent to "this isn't anything".

 

[Arc_Central]

Mentat

Yer confused.

The nothing you so profess to know so well is undefinable.

The "This is nothing" statement itself relegates nothing to a thing. As if to say - Here (it) is. Well .. where is it? If it's over there ... then there puts limits on it. I.E. It is finite and therefore a thing. If you swear it has no limits - Then there is no definition available .. for this places you with the prospect of not knowing what a thing is. So ... saying "this isn't anything" has no meaning.

The definition of the nothing you speek of is one nothing...then two nothings...then three...and so on. There is an infinity of nothings in the nothing you speek of...defined by the finite nothing which also happens to be a thing.

 

[Mumeishi]

Nothing is not a thing or state in the same way that nobody is not a person.