Nothing exists, is contradictory.

[Owen Holden]

#1
Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists.

(Nothing exists) <-> ~(Something exists)
Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)

Something exists, means, there is an x such that: x exists.
Something exists, means, Ex(x exists). (ExE!x)

x exists, is defined, there is some y such that: x is equal to y.
E!x =df Ey(x=y).

Something exists, means, Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Nothing exists, means, ~Ex[Ey(x=y)].

Because, (nothing exists) <-> ~(something exists).


But, ExEy(x=y) is a theorem.

1. Ax[x=x] and 2. AxAy[x=y -> (Fx <-> Fy)] are the axioms of identity theory, within first order predicate logic.


ExEy(x=y)

Proof:

1. Ax(x=x) -> a=a
2. a=a -> Ey(a=y).
3. Ey(a=y) -> Ex[Ey(x=y)].
4. Ax(x=x) -> ExEy(x=y).
5. ExEy(x=y).
By axiom 1, Ax(x=x).

If we use the second order Leibnitz-Russell definition of identity,
x=y =df AF(Fx <-> Fy), then we can prove that Ax(x=x) is a theorem.

x=x means AF(Fx <-> Fx), which is clearly tautologous for all x.


Therefore ~ExEy(x=y) is a contradiction.

i.e. Nothing exists is a contradiction.

~(Nothing exists), is a theorem of classical logic.

 

[nnnnnnnn]

nothing is nothing is also a contradiction...

If nothing were nothing then something (specifically nothing) would be nothing.

so is nothing not nothing?

also something is nothing is a contradiction...

 

[Hurkyl]

1. Ax(x=x) -> a=a

This is a flaw. You've assumed that there is a constant "a". Thus, you've already assumed something exists.

 

[Owen Holden]

1. Ax(x=x) -> a=a

This is a flaw. You've assumed that there is a constant "a". Thus, you've already assumed something exists.

Not so. Variables refer to names, and names refer to objects.
I only assume that there are names such as 'a'.

 

[Hurkyl]

If there are no objects, there are no constant symbols, names, or whatever you want to call it, and the quoted step is not even wrong -- it's not even a logical statement.

 

[honestrosewater]

"For a sound and complete proof system for logic with an empty domain, see (Tennant 1990)." - Logic and Ontology, Thomas Hofweber.
There are several other people who write about the empty domain and "free logics", ex. Lambert, Williamson, Goe, Hodges. I haven't read all of them yet (I do intend to), and the articles I tried reading assumed more knowledge than I have, so I can't really add any ideas of my own. But if the assumption that the universe of discourse is non-empty is unnecessary- as it seems to be-, I'd rather not assume it. (I gather that "domain" and "universe of discourse" are interchangeable.) Why do you have a problem with letting the universe be empty?

As for names v. objects, doesn't a use-mention distinction, where, for example, "Socrates is a man" and "'Socrates' is a word" are both true propositions, allow a language to talk about itself? Or is that not the distinction you meant?
Edit: Okay, I think you meant the distinction between intension (or connotation) and extension (or denotation). I'm always getting sidetracked in my reading.

 

[Doctordick]

If there are no objects, there are no constant symbols, names, or whatever you want to call it, and the quoted step is not even wrong -- it's not even a logical statement.

Hurkyl, I used to think you were a rational educated individual but your inability to pick up on rather simplistic things is beginning to bother me. Just exactly what is your background anyway.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Owen Holden]

"For a sound and complete proof system for logic with an empty domain, see (Tennant 1990)." - Logic and Ontology, Thomas Hofweber.
There are several other people who write about the empty domain and "free logics", ex. Lambert, Williamson, Goe, Hodges. I haven't read all of them yet (I do intend to), and the articles I tried reading assumed more knowledge than I have, so I can't really add any ideas of my own. But if the assumption that the universe of discourse is non-empty is unnecessary- as it seems to be-, I'd rather not assume it.

Me too. I Have not read much about 'free' logics either and it does sound interesting.

(I gather that "domain" and "universe of discourse" are interchangeable.) Why do you have a problem with letting the universe be empty?

I don't have a problem with admitting the emty domain, but classical logic does.

If we admit language and a system of logic then we can say:
1. Ax(Fx) -> Fy, 2. Fy -> Ex(Fx), 3. Ax(Fx) -> Ex(Fx) ..are true for all F, including when F={}. {} =df {the x's: ~(x=x)}

That is, (x e {}) or ({}x) are contradictory for all x.

1a. Ax({}x) -> {}y, 2a. {}y -> Ex({}x), 3a. Ax({}x) -> Ex({}x) ..are true.

{}y is false, Ex({}x) is false, and Ax({}x) is false.
~({}y) is true, Ex[~({}x)] is true, and Ax[~({}x)] is true, ..in all domains.

In the empty domain Fx is contradictory for all x, for all F.
There is no x such that x exists, ~Ex(E!x) is true there.

i.e. 'F' behaves in the same way as {} does for every F, in the empty domain.

The empty domain does exist but, nothing does not exist.
The null set/property exists by axiom, and it is something. EF(F={}).

As for names v. objects, doesn't a use-mention distinction, where, for example, "Socrates is a man" and "'Socrates' is a word" are both true propositions, allow a language to talk about itself? Or is that not the distinction you meant?:

In Fa, (a) refers to the object that "a" names if such there be.
If (a) does not refer to any object, then Fa is contradictory for all F.

e.g. Vulcan rotates, is contradictory because Vulcan (that planet which accounts for the unusual orbit of Mercury within Newtonian physics) does not exist.

Owen

 

[Owen Holden]

If there are no objects, there are no constant symbols, names, or whatever you want to call it, and the quoted step is not even wrong -- it's not even a logical statement.

I agree, it is absurd (contradictory) to assume that no-thing exists.

Nothing is not a thing at all, rather, it is a way of talking about things.

I exist, entails the existence of: I, existence, truth, language, etc., etc..

I exist, cannot be denied by anyone who understands it, because, the process of denying it shows that I do exist.

Descartes Dictum, Fa -> E!a, follows from the definition of existence.

E!x =df EF(Fx).

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you agree or disagree that your proof fails when using a language that does not contain name symbols?

 

[Owen Holden]

Do you agree or disagree that your proof fails when using a language that does not contain name symbols?

Neither 'Fa' nor 'a=a' have sense if there are no name symbols, imo.

 

[loseyourname]

By making the statement "nothing exists," you've proven the falsehood of the statement by virtue of the fact that something must exist in order to make the statement. But if nothing actually existed, nothing could make that statement and there would be no contradiction. You must consider that there would also be no systems of logic, which all presuppose their own existence.

 

[honestrosewater]

By making the statement "nothing exists," you've proven the falsehood of the statement by virtue of the fact that something must exist in order to make the statement. But if nothing actually existed, nothing could make that statement and there would be no contradiction. You must consider that there would also be no systems of logic, which all presuppose their own existence.

That's interesting. Why must a logic presuppose its own existence? Seriously. The logic itself is a subclass of other classes, for example, a metalanguage which talks about the logic (or perhaps I should call it something else, like an interpretation or structure or some such). My logic book remarks repeatedly- and I find this quite amusing- that we're only talking about the formal language L we're studying, using English- we never actually say anything using L. I don't know what would be left if we didn't stipulate that L existed- what do you guys think? Would that restrict what we could prove in L? Could we "use" L but stay in the metalanguage, or is that cheating?

 

[Crackpot]

What does nothing mean ?

Does nothing exist?
Does nothing exist as an entity?

The idea that nothing can exist as an entity or otherwise is not a part of western civilization, (the Judeao-Christian tradition of thought); as such there are no good words or reference points that describe the concept.
See URL: http://7777777s.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12

The idea of nothing in existence is one of the foundations of Mahayana Buddhist thought, i.e.

The Teaching Of Sunyata: Non-Substantiality
Nagarjuna, the Buddhist teacher believed to have lived in India sometime around the late second century and the early third century, expounded the teaching of sunyata (Jpn ku), which is variously translated as non-substantiality, void or emptiness. He developed the concept of non-substantiality from Shakyamuni’s principle of dependent origination (Skt pratityasamutpada; Jpn engi).
Nagarjuna asserted that since everything arises and continues to exist by virtue of its relationship with other phenomena (i.e., dependent origination), it has absolutely no fixed or independent substance of its own (i.e., non-substantiality). Viewed from this perspective, there is nothing that cannot be changed. Nothing exists entirely on its own, and no form is absolute and immutable. The universe, then, is full of new situations at every moment.
See URL: http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/buddhismtoday/bc006.htm

The idea of nothing was used by vonNeumann

Von Neumann [VON NEUMANN 1923] proposed that all numbers could be bootstrapped out of the empty set by the operations of the mind.
The mind observes the empty set. The mind's act of observation causes the appearance another set - the set of empty sets. The set of empty sets is not empty, because it contains one non-thing - the empty set. The mind has thus generated the number 1 by producing the set containing the empty set.
Now the mind perceives the empty set and the set containing the empty set, so there are two non-things. The mind has generated the number 2 out of emptiness. And so it goes on all the way up.
So, the three levels of dependent relationship postulated by Kadampa Buddhist philosophy are apparent even at the very deepest level of mathematics.
• Numbers have causes - the algorithms that perform the operations on the sets.
• Numbers have parts and aspects. The number 1 is defined as the set which contains the empty set and so on.
• And in the final analysis the entire number system has been generated by the play of mind on emptiness, in the complete absence of the need to refer to any material thing, or things, which are being counted.
Numbers are non-physical phenomena and need make no reference to physical systems for their existence. But neither are they inherently-existent entities from the 'Platonic realms'. Numbers are dependently-related manifestations of the working of the mind.
See URL: http://home.btclick.com/scimah/emptyset.htm

What do you mean when you say nothing exists?

 

[Philocrat]

What do you mean when you say nothing exists?

Logically, it implies:

It is not the case that there is anything

I deliberately omitted the metaphysically vexing term 'Exist', as there is currently an ongoing dispute in philosophy as to whether it is a Predicate. I am only being generous here. However, you still have not resolved the fundamental question of a metaphysical scale as to who makes the proposition at what point in or outside time and space. The standard metaphysical assumption is that if anything makes the proposition:

It is not the case that there is me or I am

Then this is a contradiction, or simply, the maker is contradicting himself or herself or itself. The argument is that you cannot say "I am" and not exist, even if you were a Brain in the vat or a toy in the factory. This is the formal component of Decartes' Corgito Argument before it got caught up in the 'EXISTENCE-PREDICATE' controversy. I am just sick and tired of people who try time and time again to twist this fact around in a self-serving manner as if though they were born to be die-hard controversialists.

---------------------
Think Nature...Stay Green! And above all, Never harm or destroy that which you cannot create! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is Good!

 

[Owen Holden]

Does nothing exist?
Does nothing exist as an entity?

The idea that nothing can exist as an entity or otherwise is not a part of western civilization, (the Judeao-Christian tradition of thought); as such there are no good words or reference points that describe the concept.
See URL: http://7777777s.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12

The idea of nothing in existence is one of the foundations of Mahayana Buddhist thought, i.e.
The idea of nothing was used by vonNeumann


What do you mean when you say nothing exists?

#1
"Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists."

imo, you have misunderstood von Neumann. He does not say that the null set is nothing.
The null set, {}, exists by axiom. {} e {{}}, proves that the null set is something.

 

[Crackpot]

Perspective - Point of view - Attitude - they count

Owen Holden
#1
"Nothing exists, means, It is not the case that something exists."

imo, you have misunderstood von Neumann. He does not say that the null set is nothing.
The null set, {}, exists by axiom. {} e {{}}, proves that the null set is something.

From Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Arnold J. Pomerans, trans. (New York: Harper, 1971), p. 63.

Heisenberg: "We cannot observe electron orbits inside the atom...Now, since a good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more fitting to restrict myself to these, treating them, as it were, as representatives of the electron orbits."

"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"

"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in some surprise...

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same...In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."


See URL:http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07c.htm

Another very popular quote from Heisenberg
"In the beginning was the symmetry"

Consider the idea that absolutely nothing and absolutely everything are coexisting simultaneously in the same space, place, and time. This is the symmetry that Heisenberg was referring to. This basic paradoxical duality can be viewed as the start of real time. http://7777777s.com/images/center.gif

Stepping away from the Platonic idea of absolutes to the same paradoxical duality, nothing and everything coexisting simultaneously in the same space, place, and time; we come to the empty set. The empty set cam be described as the nothing part of this idea. The shared link between them causes them not to be absolutes.http://7777777s.com/images/alternate.gif

A description of nothing and/or absolutely nothing that can be understood usually includes the part of the duality that we normally perceive.

My point, the idea you presented is incomplete at a basic level.

 

[Thor]

The problem with 'Nothing' is purely semantical

'Nothing' has two connotations :

'Nothing(L)' - in logical terms - is the null set (represented by the symbol 'Ø').

'Nothing(A)' - in the abstract - is 'that which does not exist'.

But, 'that which does not exist' does not exist. It is not the empty set. It is not a set at all. It has no properties or attributes.

To consider 'Nothing(A)' would be not to consider.

To perceive 'Nothing(A)' would be not to perceive.

To understand 'Nothing(A)' would be not to understand.

Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. 'Nothing' - in the abstract context - is undefined, it does not exist, it is a fiction which has no physical manifestation in the Universe.

The only definition of 'Nothing' which applies to logic and reality is:
'Nothing(L)' - the null set (represented by the symbol 'Ø').

 

[Owen Holden]

'Nothing' has two connotations :

'Nothing(L)' - in logical terms - is the null set (represented by the symbol 'Ø').

The only definition of 'Nothing' which applies to logic and reality is:
'Nothing(L)' - the null set (represented by the symbol 'Ø').

I don't agree.
The null set exists by axiom, therefore it cannot be 'nothing' in any sense.

{} e {{}}, is a theorem which proves that {} is something and that it is not nothing.

 

[Hurkyl]

Several things: {1, 2, 3}

One thing: {42}

Nothing: {}

While I'm not willing to say I agree with Thor's post, the empty set is certainly relevant to the concept of nothing.

One could say that {} describes "nothing" just as the set {..., -4, 2, 0, 2, 4, ...} describes "even integer".

 

[saviourmachine]

'Nothing(A)' - in the abstract - is 'that which does not exist'.
...
To understand 'Nothing(A)' would be not to understand.

Do you understand what 'Nothing(A)' is? Do you understand what 'Nothing(A)' isn't? Do you understand what '1' is? How is this different?

I'd guess that "To understand 'Nothing(A)' would be to understand 'everything' else." Why is that incorrect?

 

[saviourmachine]

Pretty difficult for me, so I've a few questions.

Something exists <-> ~(Nothing exists)

Do you start with this, or do you end with it? "#1a Something exists, means: it is not the case that nothing exists."

Do you divide (implicitly) the sentence "nothing exists" into smaller parts?

Did you prove that "something exists"?

 

[jsg]

Nagarjuna's two levels of meaning—conventional and absolute—may be useful in demonstrating how one can say "I don't exist" without in fact existing. Consider the statement, "this is a table." While it refers to a table in the conventional sense, if we accept the notion that nothing exists independently of everything else, and therefore has no separate substance, then there is no table in the absolute sense. The same logic applies to the statement "I don't exist." This is a conventional designation of an absolute fact and therefore exists on a different level than that which is described.

 

[flops]

Then this is a contradiction, or simply, the maker is contradicting himself or herself or itself. The argument is that you cannot say "I am" and not exist, even if you were a Brain in the vat or a toy in the factory. This is the formal component of Decartes' Corgito Argument before it got caught up in the 'EXISTENCE-PREDICATE' controversy. I am just sick and tired of people who try time and time again to twist this fact around in a self-serving manner as if though they were born to be die-hard controversialists.

This seems to be the fundamental issue. Anbody who understands the sentence "nothing exists", must upon reflection infer that it cannot be in any absolute sense true. But is this a logical truth? (Is Decartes cogito a analytic or logical truth?)

Further if we allow that domain can empty, then we cannot e.g. give the sentence (used in the proof) (Ax(x=x) -> a=a) any interpatation, since 'a' cannot refer to anything. So the usual axioms of logic seem to assume that domain is non empty. Otherwise we could not interpet or give any meaning to all the axioms.

 

[jsg]

(Is Decartes cogito a analytic or logical truth?)

Descartes' cogito is a tautology in which the conclusion restates the premise. The statement "I think" assumes the existence of a thinker, which is then repeated as "therefore I am." Nothing would be gained or lost by simply omitting the conclusion. The point is that the existence of thought does necessarily imply a thinker any more than the existence of a tree implies a "treer" separate from the tree itself. Or so I would argue.

 

[flops]

Nagarjuna's two levels of meaning—conventional and absolute—may be useful in demonstrating how one can say "I don't exist" without in fact existing.

One can obviously say "I do not exist", but it is clearly false, because someone is saying it. There's no need for a demonstration. Just say I do not exist.

Is the problem the meaningfulness of the thought "I don't exist"?
But it also seems in one sense meaningful, since It could be that I did not exist. And even if it was necessary that I existed, then the statement could still be understood simply as false (instead of meaningless).

Descartes' cogito is a tautology in which the conclusion restates the premise. The statement "I think" assumes the existence of a thinker, which is then repeated as "therefore I am." Nothing would be gained or lost by simply omitting the conclusion. The point is that the existence of thought does necessarily imply a thinker any more than the existence of a tree implies a "treer" separate from the tree itself. Or so I would argue.

I do not completely understand this last part. The existence of e.g. motion seems to imply that there is something that moves.

The existence of thought might not in some sense imply a thinker (one could probably say that thought exists as a possiblity or something like that). But thinking does imply the existence of a thinker. So in what sense is this relevant? The cogito uses the verb think, but not directly the concept thought.

The cogito might be a tautology.

But in a sense it seems different from other logical truths, in that it makes a real claim about the world. It is not a claim like "it raining or it is not raining" which says nothing about the world. The cogito says that I exist (or the conclusion says), which is an empirical fact and in no way necessary.

The claim "I think", is always true when I think it. But it is in not always true, since I do not always think.

So the content of the cogito is not only the implication that "If I think, then I am", which is true regardless of wether I'am thinking or existing, since a thought implies that somebody is thinking (it would be false only if i did think, but would not exist), but the conclusion that "I'am". It states in other words the fact that I exist.

But the implication "A->B" (where A is "I think" and B is "I am") could be thought of as a tautology. But this is not the entire cogito argument.

The cogito is in a sense like "A and A->B", but this does not seem to be a tautology. It is only the staement B, in this case that I exist.

 

[mccrone]

Stepping away from the Platonic idea of absolutes to the same paradoxical duality, nothing and everything coexisting simultaneously in the same space, place, and time; we come to the empty set. The empty set cam be described as the nothing part of this idea. The shared link between them causes them not to be absolutes.http://7777777s.com/images/alternate.gif

This line of thinking would lead you towards the Peircean notion of vagueness. And eventually right back to Aristotelean potential and Anaximander's apeiron - the boundless.

In the beginning was not "nothing" but "everything" - a maximally vague everythingness that is a potential. This potential must be symmetrically broken. Dichotomised. So if you get a crisp development in one direction, then this must also make its own counter-direction (a yin yang, figure~ground, kind of idea).

By this view, nothing might be a "something" produced out of vagueness. But it would take an equally crisply developed actual everythingness to manage it. So the empty set would be much like the Euclidean definition of a point or the entropic definition of a bit of information. It takes a vast weight of context to make a set seem empty, a point seem located, a bit seem crisply and eternally existent.

A point about the idea of "logic existing even in a realm of nothingness", this is tacitly making a strong substance~form dichotomy. Nothingness is taken to as referring to no actual physical substance (with spacetime included as substance). But form in the shape of an immutable logic is being granted absolute eternal existence - of the usual Platonic sort.

True nothingness would be no substance and no form - much harder to imagine as true.

The thing is that we know something DOES exist. So the most sensible metaphysical starting point becomes a vagueness that can develop towards crisp states of (nearly) everything and (nearly) nothing.

 

[jsg]

One can obviously say "I do not exist", but it is clearly false, because someone is saying it. There's no need for a demonstration. Just say I do not exist.

The existence of thought might not in some sense imply a thinker (one could probably say that thought exists as a possiblity or something like that). But thinking does imply the existence of a thinker.

There are two points to be made here. Nagarjuna's distinction between absolute and conventional existence doesn't assert that nothing exists, but rather that things don't exist in the way we are accustomed to thinking they do. A speeding train is real enough but has no independent existence; it is a function of the steel, electricity and everything else that has given rise to it and sent it rolling down the track.

The second point is that thought too is a function of the conditions that give rise to it. The cogito is a thought, as is the word "thinker." To assume that a thinker is the cause of a thought is to treat the word "thinker" as if it were a subject. But the word "thinker" can no more be a subject than the word "feast" can provide sustenance. We no longer see tree sprites or sea gods behind natural phenomena, but we still see agents behind mental phenomena.

 

[flops]

There are two points to be made here. Nagarjuna's distinction between absolute and conventional existence doesn't assert that nothing exists, but rather that things don't exist in the way we are accustomed to thinking they do. A speeding train is real enough but has no independent existence; it is a function of the steel, electricity and everything else that has given rise to it and sent it rolling down the track.

The second point is that thought too is a function of the conditions that give rise to it. The cogito is a thought, as is the word "thinker." To assume that a thinker is the cause of a thought is to treat the word "thinker" as if it were a subject. But the word "thinker" can no more be a subject than the word "feast" can provide sustenance. We no longer see tree sprites or sea gods behind natural phenomena, but we still see agents behind mental phenomena.

I do not see why one has to assume that the thinker is the cause of the thought? The thinker is the one who experiences a thought. All of his thoughts might be predetermined. (If I e.g. read the cogito argument from a book, then I would not be the cause of thought. I would claim that you only need to experience and understand thoughts, not cause them, for the cogito to work.)

So are there some things that have independent existence and somethings that do not?

It seems natural to think that the actual existence of thought (or instances of thought) is dependent on the somebody who thinks. Thats just the meaning of the word. A thought occures in a the brain, computer, mind or whatever.
The meaning of the word run, can not be understood without the thought that there somebody who runs. Of course the concept of running might exist without anybody whos running, but then there is no actual running taking place.

 

[jsg]

Can thought exist without the physical presence we call a thinker? I don't think so. But neither can it exist without the environment in which the thinker exists, any more than a reflection can exist without a mirror and an object, or an electric light without a bulb and a current. Any thought—including this one—is a function of a web of a phenomena rather than the product of an independent entity. We can say, "so-and-so thought such-and-such" in daily conversation, but such a statement is really just a matter of convention.

 

[Crackpot]

The thought and the thinker are one unified paradoxical duality.

Can thought exist without the physical presence we call a thinker? I don't think so. But neither can it exist without the environment in which the thinker exists, any more than a reflection can exist without a mirror and an object, or an electric light without a bulb and a current. Any thought—including this one—is a function of a web of a phenomena rather than the product of an independent entity. We can say, "so-and-so thought such-and-such" in daily conversation, but such a statement is really just a matter of convention

An example universe may make this idea clear.

• 
  Absolutely everything is the thinker

• 
  Absolutely nothing is the thought

• 
  Since there are only two absolutes, Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Everything, all else is relative and will change

• 
  This universe has a tendency for all in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity and/or complete active randomness.

• 
  The fact that the thought and the thinker are complete opposites causes them to be in a cyclical system where they go from inert uniformity to complete randomness repeatedly.

• 
  When the thinker is as close to a state of inert uniformity as it can get. The thought attempts to create a way to break the cycle, i.e. Stop the world I want off! I call this the “Intelligent Design” phase of this universe.

• 
  When the thought is as close to an active random state as it can get the thinker attempts to unify the cycle, i.e. May the circle be unbroken! I call this the “Intelligent De-evolution” phase of this universe.

• 
  The term “Big Bang” would be a misnomer in this universe. The initial thought, “Intelligent Design”, in a particular cycle would cause an unbridled rush to a state where active randomness exists. This would then stabilize, (the start of real time in this universe), because the “Intelligent Design” would in and of itself be non random.

• 
  This universe would produce gravity by establishing a link between everything and nothing, (the non absolute versions, which would be relative). A gravity particle consists of nothing, (not Absolutely Nothing), as its basic unit. The gravity particle in this universe would be very hard to detect.

• 
  Etc… etc… etc…

 

[Philocrat]

An example universe may make this idea clear.

• 
  Absolutely everything is the thinker

• 
  Absolutely nothing is the thought

• 
  Since there are only two absolutes, Absolutely Nothing & Absolutely Everything, all else is relative and will change

• 
  
  But there are those who think that 'Nothing' (be it absolute or its variant) is 'Something'. Is this correct? Things get even spookier when people try to establish a relation between the two.
  
  
  

  This universe has a tendency for all in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity and/or complete active randomness.

• 
  The fact that the thought and the thinker are complete opposites causes them to be in a cyclical system where they go from inert uniformity to complete randomness repeatedly.

• 
  When the thinker is as close to a state of inert uniformity as it can get. The thought attempts to create a way to break the cycle, i.e. Stop the world I want off! I call this the “Intelligent Design” phase of this universe.

• 
  When the thought is as close to an active random state as it can get the thinker attempts to unify the cycle, i.e. May the circle be unbroken! I call this the “Intelligent De-evolution” phase of this universe.

There is also the problem as to whether other 'Metaphysical Categories' exist other than 'Matter'. Do such metaphysical categories as Nothing, Something, Matter, Mind, Person etc exist? For there is a growing tendency that Matter is an illusive 'Self-categorising Entity'. Or is it? This gets even more so when there is a sudden realisation that matter is irreducible to anything else but iteself, hence it is inconcievable that it should initiate, let alone maintain, any causal relations with any other metaphysical category such as 'Nothing' that is often pursued and implied in the sciences such as physics.

The term “Big Bang” would be a misnomer in this universe. The initial thought, “Intelligent Design”, in a particular cycle would cause an unbridled rush to a state where active randomness exists. This would then stabilize, (the start of real time in this universe), because the “Intelligent Design” would in and of itself be non random. [/list]

• 
  This universe would produce gravity by establishing a link between everything and nothing, (the non absolute versions, which would be relative). A gravity particle consists of nothing, (not Absolutely Nothing), as its basic unit. The gravity particle in this universe would be very hard to detect.

Worst still, the 'BIG BANG-BIG CRUNCH' picture of the universe currently implied in the cosmological physics creates a nasty and almost senseless CIRCULARISM ...big bang...big crunch big bang ...big crunch .ad infinituum! Is science in general as we know it predicting a Senseless Reality or am I missing out something?

 

[jsg]

Absolutely.

 

[loseyourname]

Anyone find it ironic to some extent that we're still discussing this? The proposition that the statement "nothing exists" is self-contradictory was the basis of Parmenides' system of metaphysics, the third western philosopher that we have any record of, over 2500 years ago.