How can anything come from nothing

[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.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by 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.

Very elegantly put, Mumeishi. I admire your post here, and just wish to draw attention to it again, since it deals with an issue that needn't be an issue at all, and tackles this with...well, with an elegance that is to be admired. Kudos.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by 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?

Well, pace, I agree that the words are supposed to be used to describe the physical world (not the other way around). However, doesn't that completely work against the idea of using the word "nothing" to refer to something, since the words are supposed to be assigned to concepts that already exist, and instead - with this problem of the word "nothing" - people are trying to come up with a physical construct or state that would satisfy the word.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, pace, I agree that the words are supposed to be used to describe the physical world (not the other way around). However, doesn't that completely work against the idea of using the word "nothing" to refer to something, since the words are supposed to be assigned to concepts that already exist, and instead - with this problem of the word "nothing" - people are trying to come up with a physical construct or state that would satisfy the word.

defining Nothing is more of a search than it's the truth I think.
I simply don't see your problem. I existed before I knew words.
The word Nothing doesn't ponder me, it's the state that does.

 

[Arc_Central]

Mentat

Obviously you didn't undrstand me. I (can) say ... without a doubt ... that I understand precisely what you are saying. I used to think that way to a T.

I'll try some other words.

All fundamental things are made of nothing (no parts). All things have a field, and it is the field that is the reality of Non-Existence. These individual entities denoted by the field ... have form. Form is all that is necessary to be a thing.

I say a particle is a misnomer - It is actually a field ( a partially localized field). We see where these localized fields are by the grace of free ranging fields (photons).

Keep thinking that Existence is equally dependent on what it is not, and you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pace
defining Nothing is more of a search than it's the truth I think.
I simply don't see your problem. I existed before I knew words.
The word Nothing doesn't ponder me, it's the state that does.

My problem is that you still think there is a state of nothing. If there is a state, then it's not nothing, because a state is something! How is this so hard to understand?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Mentat

Obviously you didn't undrstand me. I (can) say ... without a doubt ... that I understand precisely what you are saying. I used to think that way to a T.

I'll try some other words.

All fundamental things are made of nothing (no parts). All things have a field, and it is the field that is the reality of Non-Existence. These individual entities denoted by the field ... have form. Form is all that is necessary to be a thing.

And how/why did you happen to form all of these completely unscientific and unsubstantiated consclusions? Besides, you've violated semantic logic again, since if there were a field, then the field would exist...hence there is not field of non-existence.

I say a particle is a misnomer - It is actually a field ( a partially localized field). We see where these localized fields are by the grace of free ranging fields (photons).

A field of what? It must be a field of something or other, and thus isn't relevant to a discussion of the meaning of the word "nothing".

Keep thinking that Existence is equally dependent on what it is not, and you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.

And yet your statement, as per the E.i.N.S. = "...you will not find anything in the bowels of reality".

 

[Eh]

Mentat, some people have such a poor grasp of logic that it's not worth wasting your time with them. If they can't think logically then no amount of reasoned arguments will convince them they are wrong. If some folks want to go on and on with pseudo intellectual drivel, let em. Save yourself the trouble.

 

[pace]

If one can't discuss, at the least one can teach.

Originally posted by Mentat
My problem is that you still think there is a state of nothing. If there is a state, then it's not nothing, because a state is something! How is this so hard to understand?

Well, yea that's what I'm saying(said some posts ago, I said I didn't believe in nothing), only it didn't come out so well in my last post there, but I was more reffering to our processes along the way, ie how Democrit argued that reality was atoms+empty space. My issue was that it is a physical question, not a labyrinth of words. I think we agree that nothing isn't there, only you started to use logic of words, and I started to insinuate about physical things.

I quoted some Philosophy History btw, if my poor languange skill don't tell you anything, read up on some, it's very fascinating.

 

[Arc_Central]

And how/why did you happen to form all of these completely unscientific and unsubstantiated consclusions?

You mean as opposed to your scientific well reasoned thought?
We are only talking about zero, one, and infinity at best.

A field of what? It must be a field of something or other, and thus isn't relevant to a discussion of the meaning of the word "nothing".

A field of nothing! <--- This is a thing.
Think of it this way - You have a balloon... Inside the balloon is nothing... Outside the balloon is nothing...The material of the balloon (you know ... the stretchy stuff) is the concept of one (the field).

You will not find anything (nothing) in the bowels of reality (the field)(the concept of one) in the context an infinity of nothing.

 

[Arc_Central]

Eh

Mentat, some people have such a poor grasp of logic that it's not worth wasting your time with them. If they can't think logically then no amount of reasoned arguments will convince them they are wrong. If some folks want to go on and on with pseudo intellectual drivel, let em. Save yourself the trouble.

Then Mr. logic - why did you post drivel?. It would seem you think mentat is logical. Therefore it follows to assume that you have no need to tell em.

Your mistake in logic is that it is equally dependent on what it is not. I.E. The universe is both logical and illogical - (one and zero).

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Your mistake in logic is that it is equally dependent on what it is not. I.E. The universe is both logical and illogical - (one and zero).

Great. Now that we've established you don't believe in basic logic, I won't waste any more time on your silly posts.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by pace

Well, yea that's what I'm saying(said some posts ago, I said I didn't believe in nothing), only it didn't come out so well in my last post there, but I was more reffering to our processes along the way, ie how Democrit argued that reality was atoms+empty space. My issue was that it is a physical question, not a labyrinth of words. I think we agree that nothing isn't there, only you started to use logic of words, and I started to insinuate about physical things.

The idea of what ontological status empty space has is an interesting topic. Of course this thread has become quite silly that it might be better off in another. There is discussion here that might be a good place to start.

As for the atomists, several early Greek philosophers pointed out the idea of completely empty space was logically inconsistent. One argument was that if atoms were separated by nothing, they wouldn't be separated by anything, and would be touching. The universe would be a solid mass and no motion would be possible. The atomists did not ignore this problem, and responded that the void was not truly empty, consisting of the spatial reality. It was only empty in the sense that no atoms were present.

 

[Arc_Central]

Great. Now that we've established you don't believe in basic logic, I won't waste any more time on your silly posts.

I hope so, and since you think the whole thread has gotten silly. It behooves you to leave in the logical sense.

Goodbye! CYA

 

[Arc_Central]

As for the atomists, several early Greek philosophers pointed out the idea of completely empty space was logically inconsistent. One argument was that if atoms were separated by nothing, they wouldn't be separated by anything, and would be touching. The universe would be a solid mass and no motion would be possible. The atomists did not ignore this problem, and responded that the void was not truly empty, consisting of the spatial reality. It was only empty in the sense that no atoms were present.

Although Eh won't be back if he is to be logically consistent. I find this paragraph to be close to what I am saying. That space is not truly empty. It is represented by individual entities of nothing, and for that matter - So are the atoms we recognize. The difference between atoms and space is minimal. Our understanding of it all is time (motion) oriented.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Eh
Of course this thread has become quite silly

We're discussing nothing, I wasn't expecting much

Originally posted by Eh
As for the atomists, several early Greek philosophers pointed out the idea of completely empty space was logically inconsistent. One argument was that if atoms were separated by nothing, they wouldn't be separated by anything, and would be touching. The universe would be a solid mass and no motion would be possible. The atomists did not ignore this problem, and responded that the void was not truly empty, consisting of the spatial reality. It was only empty in the sense that no atoms were present.

spatial reality? I think your 'how can anything be moving if nothing exist, because then everything would be solid mass' is a good point, and makes me stumble. Still, what you conclude with, I feel like going some posts back where I argue that, how 'nothing' can be a little more than 'nothing' doesn't make sense to me. Still when I say that I don't believe in nothing, there's something I don't like about it. Is it because I'm refuting myself the search ? itchy-witchy this is!

Anyways I think Mentat got a point, maybe concluding nothing isn't there, since we're talking here anyway, is (better) prooved by words. But are really words, maths, and physics standing alone by themself? Or don't they interfer with each other somehow? They do if you're a Spinozist.
Mentat, if words doesn't matter, how should I then search for nothing? Go around with no words, searching, touching, feeling? That doesn't make anymore sense does it?

Don't know what mystifies me the most tho: nothing, or that we exist.
Touching these issues makes me feel the whole life is absurd? Or is the word 'mystic'? Wittgenstein said: the mystery about life isn't how it exists, but that it exists...