Poll: Something from nothing or something eternal

[Pi_314B]

So if I have this right, what your basically saying is that if you call something a nothing, it fits for you right?

Hey you can call it mr potato head's brain if you want, but somantics don't change the fact that something cannot come from nothing, as it is a self defeating paradox=)

I suppose the idea here is that nothing does not exist, but the concept of it must.

 

[Pi_314B]

How can it possibly be possible for something to come from nothing without cause or reason?

I think you might agree that nothing would need no cause. Getting you to agree that the concept of nothing needs no cause either might be a tough nut to crack, or maybe you agree?

 

[Canute]

Tell me, Canute, can you give any support to 3? Can there be a state when speaking in absolutes that is neither something or nothing. I seems to me logically that if it is not nothing then it must be something.

I hope you don't mind but I've posted a few relevant quotes. I thought they would be more interesting than any reply I might make.

Someone said earlier that nobody had solved the paradox of the three options you listed as answers to our origins. This is not actually the case. The situation is that while nobody can make sense of options 1 and 2 (although see Alan Guth below) many people assert that option 3 is the right one, although on the whole 'western' thinkers tend not to take such people seriously.

----

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities."

C. G. Jung
D. VII Sermones ad Moruos
In S. A. Hoeller, The Gnostic Jung and the
Seven Sermons to the Dead
Theosophical Publishing House, Illinois(1982) (pp 44-58)

(In its view of the ultimate 'substance' Gnosticism is the same as Essenism, Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Theosophy, Sufism, etc.)

---

In this next extract it's best to read 'demons' as meaning 'thoughts'. You may find it too 'religious' or too psychological but, true or not, note the subtlety in this view of the the relationship between something and nothing. ('Samadi' is a state of consciousness. The phrase 'screens his Bodhi nature' means, very roughly, 'hides the truth about his (our) fundamental nature'.)

"Further, in his cultivation of samadi which, as a result of his pointed concentration of mind, can no more be troubled by demons, if the practiser looks exhaustively into the origins of living beings and begins to differentiate between views when contemplating the continuous subtle disturbance in this clear state, he will fall into error because of the following four confused views about the undying heaven.

i. As he investigates the origin of transformation, he may call changing that which varies, unchanging that which continues, born that which is visible, annihilated that which is no more seen, increasing that which preserves its nature in the process of transformation, decreasing that whose nature is interrupted in the changing process, existing that which is created, and non-existent that which disappears; this is the result of his differentiation of the eight states seen as he contemplates the manifestations of the fourth aggregate. If seekers of the truth call on him for instruction, he will declare,: ‘I now both live and die, both exist and do not, both increase and decrease,’ thus talking wildly to mislead them.

ii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he finds that each thought ceases to exist in a flash and concludes that they are non-existent. If people ask for instruction, his answer consists of the one word "Nothing," beyond which he says nothing else.

iii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he sees the rise of his thoughts and concludes that they exist. If people ask for instruction, his answer will consist of the one word "Something," beyond which he says nothing else.

iv. The practiser sees both existence and non-existence and finds that such states are so complicated that they confuse him. If people ask for instruction, he will say: "The existing comprises the non-existent but the non-existent does not comprise the existing," is such a perfunctory manner as to prevent exhaustive enquiries.

By so discriminating he causes confusion and so falls into heresy which screens his Boddhi nature. The above pertains to the fifth state of heterodox discrimination (samskara) which postulates confused views about the undying."

The Buddha
Surangama Sutra
Trans. Lu K’uan Yu
B. I. Publications, New Delhi, 1966 (p. 222)

---

This next one refers to Spencer-Brown's mathematical representation of this 'non-dual' view (of something and nothing) as given in the Surangama Sutra, although Brown usually refers back to Lao-Tsu and to Taoism rather than to Buddhism. (However he asserts that he is a Buddha).

The crucial feature of Brown's calculus, to state it clumsily, is that it is a system of logic which allows for imaginary values. This allows, for instance, something and nothing to be represented as (ultimately) the same thing, without causing disallowed contradictions in the system.

"Anyone who thinks deeply about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two "laws" that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that preceeds distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges."

Robin Robertson
'Some-Thing from No-Thing:
G. Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form'
Online

---

Cosmologist Alan Guth assumes that the universe begins with either something or nothing. He is therefore forced into this corner...

"In our everyday experience, we tend to equate empty space with "nothingness". Empty space has no mass, no colour, no opacity, no texture, no hardness, no temperature – if that is not "nothing", what is? However, from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something. According to general relativity, space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist, and flex. This bending of space is the way that a gravitational field is described. In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space seems no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from."

Alan Guth
The Inflationary Universe (p 273)


"While the attempts to describe the materialisation of the universe from nothing remain highly speculative, they represent an exciting enlargement of the boundaries of science. If someday this program can be completed, it would mean that the existence and history of the universe could be explained by the underlying laws of nature. That is, the laws of physics would imply the existence of the universe. We would have accomplished the spectacular goal of understanding why there is something rather than nothing – because, if the approach is right, perpetual "nothing" is impossible. If the creation of the universe can be described as a quantum process, we would be left with one deep mystery of existence: What is it that determined the laws of physics? "

Alan Guth
‘The Inflationary Universe’ (p 276)


It is important to note that the intractible metaphysical paradoxes arising from the something/nothing distinction that Guth is struggling with here do not exist in 'Eastern' philosophies and never have. To distinguish (ontologically) between them is considered to be dualism, an error which prevents comprehension of what is actually the case.

I'd be very interested to hear your comments on these extracts, particularly on the plausibility of 'option 3' in the light of the first three. Do they seem to you to offer a possible way out of the dilemma, or do they seem just mystical/religious claptrap?

 

[Pi_314B]

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities."

Can't disagree with this.

"Anyone who thinks deeply about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two "laws" that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that preceeds distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges."

Seems like this guy is on the right track.

 

[Royce]

I think you might agree that nothing would need no cause. Getting you to agree that the concept of nothing needs no cause either might be a tough nut to crack, or maybe you agree?

Not only does nothing not need a cause; it can have no cause.

I'm not sure what you mean that the concept of nothing needs no cause either. I don't see any concept as needing a cause. I really don't think that we are on the same page, probably not even in the same book. Please explain.

 

[Picklehead]

There is no third option.

In my opinion, saying that there is a third option is like saying, when it comes to the natural numbers, that there is neither a finite number of them, nor an infinite number of them, but 'something else' in between. Or, conversely, that there is both an infinite number of them, and a finite number of them, and that is 'something else'. Can the possibilities for that 'something else' even be coherently described without calling it something blatently contradictory like 'there is a finite number of natural numbers that never end' or, 'there is an infinite number of natural numbers that eventually comes to an end'?

Or consider two lines (on a plane, a sphere, or a torus, it doesn't matter) . . . either they intersect, or they dont. As far as I know there is no possible exception to that.

Or how about a bit . . . either 1 or 0 . . . on or off. That has little to do with the topic, I know, but I think I made my point that suggesting that there is a third option to the universe being either temporal/finite or eternal/infinite is like suggesting that there is a third digit in base 2 arithmitic.

Eh?

 

[Royce]

I hope you don't mind but I've posted a few relevant quotes. I thought they would be more interesting than any reply I might make.

Someone said earlier that nobody had solved the paradox of the three options you listed as answers to our origins. This is not actually the case. The situation is that while nobody can make sense of options 1 and 2 (although see Alan Guth below) many people assert that option 3 is the right one, although on the whole 'western' thinkers tend not to take such people seriously.

I don't mind the quotes at all. In fact I enjoyed them and found them interesting. I was trying to keep this thread in the more western line of thought and writing in a physical sense rather than a mystical or spiritual line of thinking. I had in mind starting another thread with the obvious next question; "Since most of us agree that something is eternal, is the universe eternal or was it created by an eternal something, entity?" Then getting into more eastern thinking which I do not think is religious/mystical claptrap. But, since you brought it up here, we might just as well go into it here.

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities."

C. G. Jung
D. VII Sermones ad Moruos
In S. A. Hoeller, The Gnostic Jung and the
Seven Sermons to the Dead
Theosophical Publishing House, Illinois(1982) (pp 44-58)

(In its view of the ultimate 'substance' Gnosticism is the same as Essenism, Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Theosophy, Sufism, etc.)

The term that I kept running into when studying Buddhism and Zen was "the void." I am assuming that this is what Jung is talking about rather than the physicalist "nothing" I found the void to be a misnomer as to me it was, while empty of anything physical, completely full of consciousness, knowledge and wisdom. It, to me, was and is full beyond measure of wisdom, oneness and what I can only call spirit. It was while meditating and in the void that I first became aware of this oneness of consciousness and at the same time the presence of another greater than all else. This void is completely different from the physical nothing of which I was talking about before in this thread.

"Further, in his cultivation of samadi which, as a result of his pointed concentration of mind, can no more be troubled by demons, if the practiser looks exhaustively into the origins of living beings and begins to differentiate between views when contemplating the continuous subtle disturbance in this clear state, he will fall into error because of the following four confused views about the undying heaven.

i. As he investigates the origin of transformation, he may call changing that which varies, unchanging that which continues, born that which is visible, annihilated that which is no more seen, increasing that which preserves its nature in the process of transformation, decreasing that whose nature is interrupted in the changing process, existing that which is created, and non-existent that which disappears; this is the result of his differentiation of the eight states seen as he contemplates the manifestations of the fourth aggregate.

For some reason I never fell into this pit, probably because I had already seen that there is only the one eternal moment, no-time and than all that has ever been alway was is and will be. There is no beginning and end. There is only endless change. Essentially if one accepts no-time or The Moment then one must accept that all that is, is eternal in the sense of the word as I use it here in this thread. This includes creation and change. There is no dualism there is only one and consciousness is in a sense all that there is and all that is is conscious.

The crucial feature of Brown's calculus, to state it clumsily, is that it is a system of logic which allows for imaginary values. This allows, for instance, something and nothing to be represented as (ultimately) the same thing, without causing disallowed contradictions in the system.

"Anyone who thinks deeply about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two "laws" that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that precedes distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges."

Either I am reading this wrong or this is not a good or over simplistic quote.
circular reasoning to me. Consciousness is required to make an act of distinction to differentiate the undifferentiated to create space time in this matter so how could consciousness emerge when consciousness is required to begin the process.

It may be metaphysically correct is describing the act of creation by consciousness but it is not physically correct as space/time is a property of mass/matter. Space/time emerges because of the presence of energy/mass. The Big Bang had already begun before the Higgs field formed and allowed space, time and matter to form from the energy/mass as it expanded and cooled. But that is physics or at least physical speculation.

The point is, as I see it, is first and foremost is consciousness. Without consciousness there can be only nothing. Is is a very awkward way of putting it and I have really thought it through adequately yet; but, this is the way that I am beginning to see it. This is also why we have so much trouble defining and getting a handle on consciousness. We still think of it as an emergent effect rather than as a or the prime, first cause and source.

Cosmologist Alan Guth assumes that the universe begins with either something or nothing. He is therefore forced into this corner...

"In our everyday experience, we tend to equate empty space with "nothingness". Empty space has no mass, no colour, no opacity, no texture, no hardness, no temperature – if that is not "nothing", what is? However, from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something. According to general relativity, space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist, and flex. This bending of space is the way that a gravitational field is described. In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space seems no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from."

Alan Guth
The Inflationary Universe (p 273)


"While the attempts to describe the materialisation of the universe from nothing remain highly speculative, they represent an exciting enlargement of the boundaries of science. If someday this program can be completed, it would mean that the existence and history of the universe could be explained by the underlying laws of nature. That is, the laws of physics would imply the existence of the universe. We would have accomplished the spectacular goal of understanding why there is something rather than nothing – because, if the approach is right, perpetual "nothing" is impossible. If the creation of the universe can be described as a quantum process, we would be left with one deep mystery of existence: What is it that determined the laws of physics? "

The obvious answer, to me, whether acceptable or not, is that the physical laws were made by the same consciousness that made everything in the first place.

In light of what I said above about the moment and everything that is, being by necessity eternal, the laws and the physical universe are also eternal as is the consciousness that created, is creating and always will be creating the universe and all that is. This may go against traditional thinking, even eastern thinking; but, being forced to use human linear sequential language to talk about these things is what creates the paradoxes and make it seem so non-sensible.

I'd be very interested to hear your comments on these extracts, particularly on the plausibility of 'option 3' in the light of the first three. Do they seem to you to offer a possible way out of the dilemma, or do they seem just mystical/religious claptrap?

Well there you have then in the raw, unorganized, un-thought-out, off the cuff. I hope that you and all the other can follow my rambling.

 

[Pi_314B]

Or how about a bit . . . either 1 or 0 . . . on or off. That has little to do with the topic

Actually it has everything to do with this topic. One and zero is the minimal set. One being the concept of nothing.

 

[Pi_314B]

I really don't think that we are on the same page, probably not even in the same book. Please explain.

It would be important to maintain the idea that all of reality is not physical. Reduce what you see, feel, hear, taste, and smell to simple geometric expressions, and not like they were beating you over the head in ball peen hammer style. The concept of nothing is a geometric expression of nothing. This is to say that (zero ... nothing ... a quality) cannot be divorced from (one ... something ... a quantity).

 

[Canute]

There is no third option.

In my opinion, saying that there is a third option is like saying, when it comes to the natural numbers, that there is neither a finite number of them, nor an infinite number of them, but 'something else' in between.

Is a wavicle a particle or a wave or is there a third option? Generally people think that there is, which is why the mathematics of QM is closely similar to Spencer-Brown's calculus and the epistemology of Taoism. It is not hard to extend this principle to the natural numbers - for instance, to the question of whether zero or one one is the first number on the number line, a question to which Brown would say both or neither, depending on how you look at it, but not one or the other.

 

[Canute]

Royce

We seem to be on about the same wavelength and I agree with most of what you say. But a couple of comments.

The term that I kept running into when studying Buddhism and Zen was "the void." I am assuming that this is what Jung is talking about rather than the physicalist "nothing" I found the void to be a misnomer as to me it was, while empty of anything physical, completely full of consciousness, knowledge and wisdom.

The 'void' is a misnomer really. 'Emptiness' is a better term, since it implies something that is not nothing yet also implies nothing. The 'Tao' is also better, since the term has no meaning in everyday language and therefore does not get defined by habit and remains ambiguous. Spencer-Brown uses the term 'void' for his ultimate axiom, but he makes it clear that this is not nothing but rather is undefinable, not at all the same thing. I think one just has to accept that any word or symbol used to represent (or 'idolise')this 'thing' is going to give the wrong impression. Hence Lao-Tsu's comment that "The Tao cannot be talked", or "The Tao that can be talked is not the eternal Tao", and so on. You'll find that Browns' 'void' is Lao-Tsu's Tao, Jung's 'nothing/something', and probably also your thing that is "empty of anything physical but full of consciousness", although only you can know that.

For some reason I never fell into this pit, probably because I had already seen that there is only the one eternal moment, no-time and than all that has ever been alway was is and will be. There is no beginning and end. There is only endless change. Essentially if one accepts no-time or The Moment then one must accept that all that is, is eternal in the sense of the word as I use it here in this thread. This includes creation and change. There is no dualism there is only one and consciousness is in a sense all that there is and all that is is conscious.

I more or less agree. However to say 'there is only one' is technically dualism, since if it is one it is not many. This then raises the old undecidable question of the one and the many. The term 'non-dual' means 'not two', but it does not mean 'one'. It's horribly difficult to talk about this thing without accidently mischaracterising it in some way.

Either I am reading this wrong or this is not a good or over simplistic quote. .circular reasoning to me. Consciousness is required to make an act of distinction to differentiate the undifferentiated to create space time in this matter so how could consciousness emerge when consciousness is required to begin the process.

Yes, this is what GSB is saying, that the maker of distinctions pre-exists the distinctions.

It may be metaphysically correct is describing the act of creation by consciousness but it is not physically correct as space/time is a property of mass/matter. Space/time emerges because of the presence of energy/mass. The Big Bang had already begun before the Higgs field formed and allowed space, time and matter to form from the energy/mass as it expanded and cooled. But that is physics or at least physical speculation.

Brown is saying that spacetime is a conceptual construct. This is consistent with physics, which has concluded that it is not fundamental.

This is also why we have so much trouble defining and getting a handle on consciousness. We still think of it as an emergent effect rather than as a or the prime, first cause and source.

Amen to that. But I feel it's better to say 'causeless cause' than cause, or perhaps 'contingent condition'. Otherwise the paradox of the 'first cause' appears.

Well there you have then in the raw, unorganized, un-thought-out, off the cuff. I hope that you and all the other can follow my rambling.

No problem.


Pi_314B ...

Actually it has everything to do with this topic. One and zero is the minimal set. One being the concept of nothing.

Yes I agree, it is relevant. The problem of whether one or zero comes first on the number line is the same as the problem of whether something or nothing comes first in existence, and seems to me to have the same solution. Zero implies one, and one implies zero. They exist conceptually in dependence on each other and so neither is fundamental. What is fundamental is whatever exists before the concept of the number line, for instance GSB's 'void' from which he derives the numbers, which is itself neither one-thing or no-thing. I like your phrase "One being the concept of nothing". It states the relationship simply and clearly. A void must be conceived of as one thing. This is why Brown's 'void' is indefinable rather than a void in a scientific sense.

 

[Picklehead]

I want to say that the difference that you are talking about is more like [ ] and [0], which are two different things (dont ask me how).

It could be argued that -1 comes before 0 on the number line, and that there is no 'beginning' to the number line, but it does have a 'middle'.

How similar or related is this topic to the question of whether or not this 'something' which exists will continue to exist or at some point cease to exist . . . or is that strictly cosmology? Or is it the same question?

 

[Thor]

There is no third option.

Yes there is.
Theory of Reciprocity

It resolves the semantical problem most theorists encounter when dealing with the subject of 'Nothing'.

That necessary but indefinite abstract we call 'nothing' is the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum - and the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system.

 

[Royce]

The 'void' is a misnomer really. 'Emptiness' is a better term, since it implies something that is not nothing yet also implies nothing. The 'Tao' is also better, since the term has no meaning in everyday language and therefore does not get defined by habit and remains ambiguous. Spencer-Brown uses the term 'void' for his ultimate axiom, but he makes it clear that this is not nothing but rather is undefinable, not at all the same thing. I think one just has to accept that any word or symbol used to represent (or 'idolize')this 'thing' is going to give the wrong impression. Hence Lao-Tsu's comment that "The Tao cannot be talked", or "The Tao that can be talked is not the eternal Tao", and so on. You'll find that Browns' 'void' is Lao-Tsu's Tao, Jung's 'nothing/something', and probably also your thing that is "empty of anything physical but full of consciousness", although only you can know that.

Terminology is always a problem when talking about these things as the human language is not adaptable to conceptual thinking but like our minds is linear and sequential. I had read long ago that Tao could be loosely translated as meaning The Way and have always thought of it as that. To me Zen is more Taoist thinking than Buddhist but that may just be me and my biases.

I think the something/nothing, void is the same as I experienced. I know that at the time I was sure that it was but could have been mistaken and it was just an assumption. There is know way that I could truly know. Yet this is still different from the absolute nothing with which this thread is concerned. I consider it, the void as part, a very real part of reality whereas "NOTHING" cannot be a part of anything including reality yet it is. It is that without attributes, properties or characteristics that is what is outside reality, the Universe. This is inadequate I know but it is the best that I can do to put it into words.

I more or less agree. However to say 'there is only one' is technically dualism, since if it is one it is not many. This then raises the old undecidable question of the one and the many. The term 'non-dual' means 'not two', but it does not mean 'one'. It's horribly difficult to talk about this thing without accidental mischaracterising it in some way.

Agreed. it is very difficult to put in words and retain and convey any meaning at all. More accurately I think I could say simple reality is, and all that is is reality; but, does this statement really hold any meaning to someone not familiar with this way of thinking and these concepts. As Lao-Tsu would say, to put it into words is to kill it. or Zen, to name it is to limit it beyond recognition.

Amen to that. But I feel it's better to say 'causeless cause' than cause, or perhaps 'contingent condition'. Otherwise the paradox of the 'first cause' appears.

The 'causeless cause' and 'first cause' as well as 'cause' are all the same thing, misnomers but lacking a better term we are forced to use them and as they are inadequate and inaccurate they all lead to paradoxes.

 

[Pi_314B]

I like your phrase "One being the concept of nothing".

My preference is to call it (The Reality Of Non-Existence). We can call reality the definition of Non-Existence, with the understanding that Non-Existence is undefinable. The insinuation here in the last sentence is that reality is incomplete, wherein the definition of Non-Existence is an ongoing process that will never be concluded.

 

[Canute]

Here are a few more comments from other people.

This first one makes clear the difficulty of describing the Tao, which is ontologically fundamental in Taoism and takes the role of both/neither something and nothing, (or 1 and 0).

"The metaphysical "substance of the Tao" is in and of itself undifferentiated and has no attributes to speak of. However, since it is the "mother" of the myriad things which have attributes, it bears a relationship to the myriad things and, as a result, takes on a set of attributes which are contingent upon this relationship and which can and must be talked about in terms of what the attributes of the myriad things both are and are not."

Edward T. Ch'ine
‘The Conception of Langauge And The Use of
Paradox In Buddhism And Taoism’
Journal of Chinese Philosophy
Vol. 11 1984

Thus the Tao is impossible to discuss in ordinary language without contradiction because of the assumptions built into that language. These assumptions form the basis of Boolean algebra, which is designed to model the way we think, and are thus the basis of the way we reason.

"Boolean algebra is concerned with ideas or objects that have only two possible stable states - e.g., on/off, closed/open, yes/no, true/false."

Jan Gullberg
‘Mathematics From the Birth of Numbers’

But this reasoning leads to problems when it gets down to the fundamental nature of reality. So...

"The vagueness of this language in use among the physicists has therefore led to attempts to define a different precise language which follows definite logical patterns in complete conformity with the mathematical scheme of quantum theory. The result of these attempts by Birkhoff and Neumann and more recently by Weizsäcker can be stated by saying that the mathematical scheme of quantum theory can be interpreted as an extension or modification of classical logic.

It is especially one fundamental principle of classical logic which seems to require a modification. In classical logic it is assumed that, if a statement has any meaning at all, either the statement or the negation of the statement must be correct. Of ‘here is a table’ or ‘here is not a table’, either the first or second statement must be correct. ‘Tertium non datur,’ a third possibility does not exist. It may be that we do not know whether the statement or its negation is correct; but ‘in reality’ one of the two is correct.

In quantum theory this law ‘tertium non datur’ is to be modified. Against any modification of this fundamental principle one can of course at once argue that the principle is assumed in common language and that we have to speak at least about our eventual modification of logic in the natural language. Therefore, it would be a self-contradiction to describe in natural language a logical scheme that does not apply to natural language."

Werner Heisenberg
Physics and Philosophy(124-5)
Penguin 1990 (1962)

This is what I meant earlier by suggesting that the mathematical structure of QM is similar to that of Taoism or Brown's calculus. The last sentence here is the reason Lao-Tsu says that the Tao must be talked about in terms of "what the attributes of the myriad things (the phenomenal universe) both are and are not". Our language, which is 'instinctively' predicated on what we these days call the laws of Boolean logic, does not allow everything that is true to be said. Likewise, this same linguistic/conceptual logic is a limiting factor on our ability to conceptualise, and entails that not everything that is can be conceived. Hence the something/nothing problem, which is caused by a conceptual failure.

While everything of which we can conceive is either something or nothing, 'something' that is neither something nor nothing cannot be conceived. This is because this 'something' is the thing that is doing the conceiving, and it is too self-referential a task to conceive of the conceiver, perceive the perceiver, imagine the imaginer etc. (One can try this. It is a task equivalent to axiomatising mathematics, and equally impossible).

Thus the fundamental 'something', that is not either something or nothing, can only be experienced non-conceptually, ('immaterially' or 'formlessly' as the mystics put it), i.e. by an apperception which transcends, or is empty of, our normal mental processes of conceiving and perceiving, and indeed all forms of mental processing.

So when Pi 314B (or Lao-Tsu, Spencer-Brown etc.) says that spacetime is a conceptual construct they are saying that in a non-conceptual state of apperception (mind's perception of itself) spacetime ceases to exist, along with the notion of something and nothing, leaving only what underlies our ordinary human consciousness. This cannot be said to be one thing or the other since it transcends all distinctions, including that between something and nothing, or subject and object, and even that between existing or not-existing.

This is likely to seem like complete nonsense to some. But those who hold this view state that an exploration of ones own consciousness can make it self-evidently true. At least we can say that it does not contradict the facts, for if what is fundamental to our existence cannot be properly characterised as either something or nothing then the question of which of these two things it is would be undecidable, and it is.

It seems to me that the most simple and elegant explanation of why the something/nothing question is undecidable is that neither answer is correct. That is to say, it seems reasonable to suppose that the reason it makes no sense to say that the universe began with something or nothing is that it didn't.

 

[Pi_314B]

Canute

I agree with much of your post. A bit of fine tuning is in order to reach complete understanding. This is not to say that my engine purrs like a kitten. I consider the initial question of this thread to be answerable. This comes with greater understanding IMO. Expecting people to accept that all of reality is not a physical entity but a conceptual one is a tall order in itself. It is difficult to argue with a person stubbing their toe, that this event is not physical. Perhaps even you would question this. I find it amazing that those who wish to explain the universe, choose to exclude the thoughts they use to explain it. I.E No explanation of what a thought is. Is this to say that thought does not exist?

I have a postulate that I cannot give up without getting lost. It is this.

( All that exist must have form )

I cannot deny the existence of thought, therefore thought has form. A baseball exist, has form, and expresses the thought baseball through interaction. The color yellow exist and therefore has form, the form (thought) of yellow. Whats the difference between baseball and yellow? The answer is the shape of the form. We are only talking in terms of geometric differences by which geometries can be changed through interaction of those geometries. The color yellow can become the color blue through interaction, and the baseball can turn to a ball of yarn with a very robust interaction with a bat. What can be noted here is the quality of the form. I.E. The baseballs geometry has changed, and along with it ...It's expression. The thought baseball is lost, for the form has changed through interaction with the bat.


One might ask: Whats this got to do with the initial question of this thread? I would submit that if you understand the quality of the form ... you will come to grips with The Reality Of Non-Existence. Such that we can understand something from nothing, but not with a completeness from a Non-Existent sense. In other words we cannot escape reality to get the brass ring, or escape reality to return with a fist full of dollars. Hence we cannot give as a matter of fact statements for something from nothing. We can only infer them through the expressions given by the forms surrounding us. These forms can't be much different from nothing at all, if we in fact are from nothing, and my interpretation of realty is just that...Geometric forms of nothing.

 

[Canute]

I'm afraid I can't follow all of that. However I agree with you that everything that exists must have form, and also that if we want to understand reality we cannot leave the nature of our thoughts unexamined. You might like this.

"What all people desire to know is that.
But our means of knowing that is by this.
How can we know that?
Only by perfecting this."

Kuan Tzu (4th - 3rd century B.C.)

"The Kuan Tzu ponders, "All men desire to know, but they do not enquire into that whereby one knows." How indeed can one know anything external when all that is known is known through the mode of the perceiver? Are we studying ourselves when we think we are studying nature? Will the "new science" eventually come to the conclusion of Kuan Tzu, that only "by perfecting this, can we truly know that"? It is an interesting question: how accurate and objective can the observation be if the observer is flawed and imperfect?"

Martin J. Verhoeven
Buddhism and Science

However we seem to disagree about something coming from nothing. It's an idea that makes no sense to me.

 

[Royce]

( All that exist must have form )

I cannot deny the existence of thought, therefore thought has form...; The answer is the shape of the form. We are only talking in terms of geometric differences by which geometries can be changed through interaction of those geometries...;

One might ask: Whats this got to do with the initial question of this thread? I would submit that if you understand the quality of the form ... you will come to grips with The Reality Of Non-Existence. Such that we can understand something from nothing, but not with a completeness from a Non-Existent sense. In other words we cannot escape reality to get the brass ring, or escape reality to return with a fist full of dollars. Hence we cannot give as a matter of fact statements for something from nothing. We can only infer them through the expressions given by the forms surrounding us. These forms can't be much different from nothing at all, if we in fact are from nothing, and my interpretation of realty is just that...Geometric forms of nothing.

The problem I am have with your philosophy is that if I were to accept form and geometry as being the ultimate or only true reality, form and geometry are still something.

True they are not physical but as you said pure thought exists in reality as something. Even if the entire universe and what we call reality is pure thought and/or consciousness it is still something thus something is not coming from nothing.

To go further, even if we think of geometry and thought or form as being nothing there remains the something that generated, created, and holds these thoughts, forms and/or geometries. Thus we are still stuck with something coming from something and that something is, by necessity, eternal even if in reality eternal is but a moment, a fleeting moment.

Even Tao is something though it may make no differentiation between something and nothing. I belief that it is addressing physical nothing and physical something. Even if Tao was all that really is and cannot be spoken of, it is still something and again by necessity eternal.

I still see no escape from the only two viable options of something from nothing or something eternal, speaking in absolute terms of course.

 

[Pi_314B]

The problem I am have with your philosophy is that if I were to accept form and geometry as being the ultimate or only true reality, form and geometry are still something.

Yes... Form is something ... Never said it wasn't. Form is the reality of nothing. It is the something you get from the nothing in the absolute sense as you refer to, (because) that is what nothing {is} in {reality}. What absolute nothing is in it's Non-Existent sense is undefinable from our perspective...we exist. Yet it {must} be defined because we are here.


A complete definition of absolute nothing can't be real by it's own definition, Therefore reality is an incomplete definition of nothing, by which we can infer an ongoing process that will never be finished. The universe is an artifact of this ongoing definition. Each and every form (geometric representative) in this universe constitutes a part of that definition, by which new parts are still being defined, and will continue to do so. Over the course of infinity ...the definition will be complete, and the universe will cease to exist.

To go further, even if we think of geometry and thought or form as being nothing there remains the something that generated, created, and holds these thoughts, forms and/or geometries.

If one were to remove all that exist...what remains? I'll answer that by saying the undefinable nothing that must be defined because we are here. We can't know that which does not exist, but we can say we exist because of it. This is the best we can do because we can't escape reality by any means whatsoever. We can only infer from the direction we may or may not be pointed to. From what I can gather the universe can only work the way it does if all things are made of nothing at all. The world is reduced to geometry, and the interactions of those forms.
How else can you fit a billion suns into a space the size of a briefcase if all things are not made of nothing? The answer can only come by way of conceptual means (the unbridled cornerstone of existence).


I am sure my replies are falling short of expectations, but I can't explain in toto that which cannot be explained in reality.

 

[Pi_314B]

I'm afraid I can't follow all of that. However I agree with you that everything that exists must have form, and also that if we want to understand reality we cannot leave the nature of our thoughts unexamined.

Well let's see if we can break that down and come to an agreement.

The nature of thought.
Since we are in agreement that all that exist must have form, we must accept that thought has form. So what is the nature of thought? I would submit that it is no more no less than the geometric embodiment of nothing, and that's all there is. Meaning that thought is the building block of our universe, and comunication between these blocks are afforded through shared geometries. I.E Interaction...A particle would be an example of shared geometry, wherein interaction is carried out between different geometric units on a continuous basis, and those units would seem to remain stationary, but are in fact moving at C. Gravity is also an example of those building blocks that make up a particle, wherein it represents the geometric extension of those blocks, and accordingly interact with other extensions, and or any other geometric representations to at least some effect. To add to that - A thought to me is the equivalent of a photon. They all move at C under any and every circumstance. If you could tie up photons such as to make them orbit...you would have the makings of a particle, and the resistance to move them from the self interaction of the photons that make it up. I.E. MASS Wherein the extensions (gravity) of the pent up photons self interact.

Do you have a view of what thought is?

However we seem to disagree about something coming from nothing. It's an idea that makes no sense to me.

Saying that something came from nothing is the same as saying that I exist because I don't exist. The cause is Non-Existence and must be defined if true, but we have no way of knowing that definition beyond what our universe tells us, and it's telling me there's a whole lotta nothing to talk about. Don't know if that made any sense to you, but it looks good from my vantage point.


On the other hand we have something eternal, which has left me in dead ends that I can't resolve. I would be happy to entertain (debate) the validity of this possibility, but when most people are pressed for the minutiae of how that works in our current universe, they tend to not have a clue. If you can explain how this works - I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[Canute]

Hmm. Afraid I still can't grasp quite what you're getting at. I agree with Royce that form or geometry is not nothing, and don't know what it could mean to say that "non-existence" is "the cause" of anything and "must be true". How can non-existence be a causal thing? What do you mean here by the term 'non-existence'? Does it not mean nothing?

Royce - You're right about the Tao, it is not nothing, and Taoists do not claim that something came from nothing (although they may well claim that Being comes from non-Being, a related issue). Yet the Tao is not something in the ordinary sense of the word. Hence it is usually referred to as 'something', the inverted commas signifying that it is not something in the everyday sense. I've wondered if it is correct to call it, in line with the current terminology of consciousness studies, 'what it is like to be nothing' or, perhaps, 'nothing but what it is like' or something similar, but I'm not far enough along to know if these phrases are really appropriate.

The point about the 'Tao' (and its equivalent in other non-dual doctrines) is that it just 'is'. It is timeless yet contains all time, unextended yet contains all extension. It cannot not be and it gives rise to everything else. It exists, yet not in the same sense that anything else exists but in a truer sense (it is said to be the only thing that exists that is a phenomenon rather than an epiphenomenon, the only uncreated 'thing'). It lies outside (/inside) of time and space and is inconceivable, unimaginable and so on, but can be known through direct non-conceptual experience. It did not arise from nothing or from something, for it is more fundamental than something and nothing and so cannot be characterised as either without causing misunderstanding. (Much as a wavicle is more fundamental than particles and waves and cannot be correctly characterised as either). It is what underlies the existence of everything else, what everything is made out of if you like. (Hence the Buddhist saying that "Emptiness lies at the heart of everything"). As far as I can tell it is what is referred to in other contexts as 'Budhha-nature', 'Nibbanah', 'the Kingdom of Heaven', 'Allah', 'the Godhead', 'Unicity' and many other such terms, (none of which signify a God!).

It sounds like a very strange 'thing'. But note that we know, if BB theory is correct, that the 'physical' universe arose from 'something' very strange that existed, in some sense or other of 'exists', before space and time existed. This must have been, and must still be, something very Tao-like. Here's the great man again on the subject.

"There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which is born before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it stands alone and does not change. It goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it the Tao."

Lao Tzu
Tao Teh Ching

 

[Royce]

Canute, from your description of Tao above I think that what I would call the universal consciousness (or in another place, the spirit of God, Holy Ghost)
that is eternal and in and of the eternal moment. IMHO, the entire universe is contained and caused within this universal consciousness and yet part of the Universal consciousness is a part of the universe. They cannot be separated or differentiated. It exists but does not exist in physical form as the universe exist in physical form but not in spiritual form. I tried to approach this in my One Reality thread but as with the Tao it is impossible to adequately put into words.

 

[Moses]

I did not read the hwole thread since i am now at work

Still, i want drop my two pennys:

At least by logic i found that this universe did not came to existnece by itself, and it may be came from another "universe" or "Creation master" i.e. God. Since invitifty of successes do not exist. [since infinity itself does not exist] This universe/universe ir oder for have a "system" for forming e.g. like physics law chemistry ...etc they should have been "programmed" .

We neded up by a thing the is not part of this creation, nor separate from it, which is its master.

I hope my enlgish does not make my two pennys looking too gray

 

[Pi_314B]

Hmm. Afraid I still can't grasp quite what you're getting at. I agree with Royce that form or geometry is not nothing

Didn't say that form is nothing. Been saying all along that form is something. I did say that a form is composed of nothing, and the shape of the form expresses the quality of the form. I think what your missing here is from the result of thinking physically. What I'm trying to say is that all units of Existence have no physical characteristics whatsoever, that they are purely conceptual in nature. I'll type out the capital letter { O } for an example of this. Let's say for the sake of discussion that this circle is all there is. Whats within that circle I will characterize as nothing (Non-Existence), for there is no form within that circle, and as accepted by you - {All that exist must have form}. From this we can safely say we have one thing of nothing. I.E. Where form is the thing that is composed of nothing.


Lets examine the form { O } - This is the line in the form of a circle, and this is where we can leave the physical playing field in favor of a conceptual undertaking. What I'm saying here is that the line in the form of a circle has no thickness. It is not a physical entity, but a conceptual one. We can do this without losing the existence of the form. In this example - Thought is form, and the quality of the thought is expressed by the shape of the form, so when we experience the colors red verses blue, we are simply measureing a geometric difference in shape.

and don't know what it could mean to say that "non-existence" is "the cause" of anything and "must be true". How can non-existence be a causal thing?

If what i wrote above is true - We have a bonafide link IMO. One thing of nothing is certainly not a far cry from absolutely nothing at all.

 

[Royce]

I did say that a form is composed of nothing,... What I'm trying to say is that all units of Existence have no physical characteristics whatsoever, that they are purely conceptual in nature... Where form is the thing that is composed of nothing.

You have yet to say how or why something can be composed of nothing. Thought, form etc. are all something, information if nothing else, a reduction of entropy if not energy. It take energy to convey information. It even take energy to hold information. While I am no expert in information theory, I do know this much.

Though not physical any form of organization such as thought of form has characteristics and your statement that all units of Existence have know physical characteristics is clearly wrong, I would agree that some units of Existence have know physical characteristics there is the Universe and all it contains that all have physical characteristics.

Some time ago I read that the sum of the total energy of the universe was 0 as gravity was negative and it could then be possible that the Universe came from nothing and would eventually return to nothing but the writer did not say how or why this happened. We are still left with the ultimate question of why there is something and not nothing.

 

[Canute]

I agree. One would have to ask why there are forms rather than nothing.

 

[Pi_314B]

You have yet to say how or why something can be composed of nothing.

I did at least tell you how something can be composed of nothing.

I'll type out the capital letter { O } for an example of this. Let's say for the sake of discussion that this circle is all there is. Whats within that circle I will characterize as nothing (Non-Existence), for there is no form within that circle, and as accepted by you - {All that exist must have form}. From this we can safely say we have one thing of nothing. I.E. Where form is the thing that is composed of nothing.

I can't tell you why something exist because that requires knowledge of that which is beyond reality. I can't know that which does not exist. I can only show the existence of nothing by conceptual means. What is real here is the concept of it. This is to say that nothing in the absolute sense knows what it (IS). Reality is the (IS) in the last sentence.

 

[Royce]

I did at least tell you how something can be composed of nothing.

You are simply giving us your distorted concept of nothing. That which is inside a circle is empty space or negative space and is just as important and as much part of the symbol "0" as the closed line of the circle itself. It is not nothing or composed of nothing but part of the symbol or form of "0." The concept of mathematical "0" is something entirely different yet it too is something.

I can't you why something exist because that requires knowledge of that which is beyond reality. I can't know that which does not exist. I can only show the existence of nothing by conceptual means. What is real here is the concept of it. This is to say that nothing in the absolute sense knows what it (IS). Reality is the (IS) in the last sentence.

There nothing that is beyond reality. Nothing knows and can know nothing. We can know nothing about nothing for there is nothing to know about nothing. We can only know and state that which nothing is not such as nothing does not exist and has no properties, values or characteristics among other things which nothing is not or has not. Only nothing can come from nothing and only nothing can return to nothing. Nothing caused nothing. Nothing influences or effects nothing. Nothing is; but, it is not something that can be said to exist.

 

[Pi_314B]

There is nothing that is beyond reality.

I'll buy that.

Nothing knows and can know nothing.

Yes - Thats what I've been saying.

We can know nothing about nothing for there is nothing to know about nothing.

Sounds good to me.

Only nothing can come from nothing

Yep

Nothing caused nothing.

Yep

Nothing is; but, it is not something that can be said to exist.

You get a perfect ten. What (IS) - (IS) the concept of it. Such as - I am, because I am not. The minimal set here is zero and one by which anything is possible. This is not saying (something eternal). It is (nothing eternal).