Philosophical Nothingness Argument - Jim Holt

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vorde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Jim Holt's book "Why Does the World Exist," specifically its opening argument that asserts the necessity of something existing rather than nothing. Holt presents a logical proof stating that if nothing exists, then there would be no laws, leading to the conclusion that nothing is self-forbidding. Participants express intrigue and skepticism regarding the simplicity of this proof and seek to identify potential flaws or weaknesses in the argument. The conversation highlights the philosophical implications of the concept of 'nothing' and its dual usage in the argument.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic philosophical concepts, particularly metaphysics.
  • Familiarity with logical reasoning and argumentation.
  • Knowledge of the terminology surrounding existential questions.
  • Awareness of Jim Holt's philosophical contributions and works.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the philosophical implications of 'nothingness' in existential philosophy.
  • Study critiques of Jim Holt's arguments in "Why Does the World Exist."
  • Investigate other philosophical proofs regarding existence and non-existence.
  • Read additional works on metaphysics to deepen understanding of foundational concepts.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for philosophers, students of metaphysics, and anyone interested in existential questions and the nature of reality.

Vorde
Messages
786
Reaction score
0
I recently received Why Does the World Exist by Jim Holt. I haven't gotten around to reading anything but the first chapter, but the book opens with a rather interesting paragraph:
A Quick Proof That There Must Be Something Rather Than Nothing, for Modern People Who Lead Busy Lives

Suppose there were nothing. Then there would be no laws; for laws, after all, are something. If there were no laws, then everything would be permitted. If everything were permitted, then nothing would be forbidden. So if there were nothing, nothing would be forbidden. Thus nothing is self-forbidding.

QED

The book then starts on a completely different note, and from my skimming it doesn't seem to treat this introduction with any length.

I, however, am stuck on this.
It seems to me to be a rather concise proof of what it tries to accomplish, but I cannot believe it is as simple as it appears.

Can anyone point out a flaw in this argument? Or a place of weakness?

Thank you.

I'll note that an initial qualm was over the use of 'nothing' both as a noun and as meaning 'the lack of a noun' but it seems to me that even with this considered, this paragraph makes a daunting argument.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, we closed the philosophy forum.
 

Similar threads

Ultimate question: Why anything at all?
  • · Replies 416 ·
14
Replies
416
Views
92K
Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
High School How Does Blackbird Leverage Wind Power to Move Faster Than the Wind?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
16K
Graduate Nothingness and the rise of something
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Graduate Dieter Zeh's MWI as Schrödinger equation + further assumptions
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Graduate Penrose's argument that q.g. can't remove the Big Bang singularity
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
15K
Temporal Relation Between Cause and Effect
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
What Is the Meaning of Existence?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Graduate Why is it considered the 'end of the universe' when the stars go dark?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Undergrad How do you understand EPR & Bell's Theorem?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K