How can anything come from nothing

[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.

 

[mikelus]

nothing

if you describe nothing as death. Then we have a lot of nothing in our life related to death. Fears and belives. mikelus

 

[Mumeishi]

We have a lot of misconceptions about death. Death is not a thing or a state. Subjectively there is no death, only anticipation. Death is something that always exists in our future, never in our present. For the subject, death does not exist.

Similarly there never was a time when we were waiting to be conceived.

Even from the outside, although the death of another is an event, it is a process not a state. My grandparents do not continue to exist in a dead state. They no longer exist.

 

[pace]

The way I understand it,

No words are the things they are describing either. It's pointless to say that just because nothing doesn't logically work with 'nothing', it's no idea talking about it.

The physical world isn't trying to live up to the words, it's rather the words that's trying to describe the physical world. Or maybe even the whole thing.
But how far can the words reach?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by 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.

And yet none of the statements that you have just made are logically valid. The second you speak of the word "nothing" as though it referred to something (anything, no matter how undefined) you have committed a semantic and logical error. That's why the E.i.N.S. works so well, it only appeals to the word "nothing", and to the way it is supposed to be used, it does not try to assign what concept the word "nothing" refers to since "nothing" cannot refer to any concept at all.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Nothing is not a thing or state in the same way that nobody is not a person.

Exactly, Mumeishi, very well put. When one uses the word "nobody" we don't assume they are talking about some person named "nobody" (which would be foolish), and so we should not assume that the word "nothing" refers to anything.