Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

  • Thread starter Langbein
  • Start date

baywax

Gold Member
1,919
1
Where do concepts come from and what are they made of?
Concepts are a result of brain tissue interacting with the environment.

"Re: Why does anything exist than rather nothing?"

Could someone please produce evidence that "nothing" exists"?

Without that confirmation, the question is null and "void".
 
C

castlegates

Concepts are a result of brain tissue interacting with the environment.
That doesn't answer the question. The question was - What are concepts made of.
I am a firm believer that to exist, one must have form. Any thing else and you may as well be talking about a ghost. My expectation here is three dimensional, and the various shapes of form constitute what would be different concepts, and these forms are composed of nothing at all, wherein the form itself carries the concept, such as an apple verses a rabbit, two diferent forms, two different concepts.
Could someone please produce evidence that "nothing" exists"?
Your expectation seems to be that if nothing exist, that we or anything else cannot exist at the same time. I could never show you the existence of nothing, without first giving it form. The definition of nothing uses a thing to convey the absence of it.
It conveys nothing within the boundry of form. A fundamental entity must be made of nothing. I.E There are no parts.
 
A lot of nothing is tossed around here. The last page or two show a sore lack of intellectual rigor. I read that what doesn't exist is relevant. I read that physical concepts we can all confirm don't exist. I see gratuitous inferences from vague statements presented as proof. Point them out and you receive a "you don't get it" followed by a repetition of the same idle claims. Reason has left the building. This thread has sunk to downright goofy levels.
 

baywax

Gold Member
1,919
1
That doesn't answer the question. The question was - What are concepts made of.
I am a firm believer that to exist, one must have form. Any thing else and you may as well be talking about a ghost. My expectation here is three dimensional, and the various shapes of form constitute what would be different concepts, and these forms are composed of nothing at all, wherein the form itself carries the concept, such as an apple verses a rabbit, two diferent forms, two different concepts.

Your expectation seems to be that if nothing exist, that we or anything else cannot exist at the same time. I could never show you the existence of nothing, without first giving it form. The definition of nothing uses a thing to convey the absence of it.
It conveys nothing within the boundry of form. A fundamental entity must be made of nothing. I.E There are no parts.
At the risk of continuing this goofy topic I'll point out that concepts are "made of" the electromagnetic pulses of neurons during their interaction with their environment. "Their environment" includes the environment of the brain tissue and the other components of what "the environment" means. Simple, really.
 
A lot of nothing is tossed around here. The last page or two show a sore lack of intellectual rigor. I read that what doesn't exist is relevant. I read that physical concepts we can all confirm don't exist. I see gratuitous inferences from vague statements presented as proof. Point them out and you receive a "you don't get it" followed by a repetition of the same idle claims. Reason has left the building. This thread has sunk to downright goofy levels.
Who are you talking about? Some people sure are not thinking correctly, no doubt about it. But they assume they have knowledge to make informed comments on the matter. If you have beef with someone(s) you have not demonstrated your case. Which word or which statements do you have a beef with and with which posters? Certainly some posters are misinformed, but others are not. You're trying to hit everyone at once, let's see what should be done about this.

Person A makes statement X (the claim is there it exists)
Person B says statement X is false/incorrect, based on faulty notions/definitions, etc, etc.

This means Person B detected, read into his mind the statements and found that they were false, incorrect, misleading, therefore person B has the knowledge to demonstrate to us the error of our ways right away, point out which word or which statement is incorrect. He must also point out the errors themselves. He cannot say "all of it" unless he can demonstrate point by point how each statement or word is incorrect, else he has no valid claim.

Person B does not point out where and demonstrate it for us.

Therefore person B's claims can only be considered once he has pointed out errors, and demonstrated why they are incorrect assuming person B's conceptual understanding and learning is not flawed from the outset.

Concepts are the lenses by which we see and interpret the world -- errors in concepts equals error in judgements, therefore we can go back in the chain to see if the concepts behind the words were conceived properly and question whether or not they were conceptualized from nature coherently.

Therefore person B has no valid claim until he demonstrates his claims against those who he has a beef with.

Every concept you have was derived from previously existing matter and energy, i.e. every thought you can ever think is made of something that pre-existed you, all you are doing is reshaping it, and in the end any thought incongruent with how nature actually is, is by definition incorrect.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't answer the question. The question was - What are concepts made of.
I am a firm believer that to exist, one must have form. Any thing else and you may as well be talking about a ghost. My expectation here is three dimensional, and the various shapes of form constitute what would be different concepts, and these forms are composed of nothing at all, wherein the form itself carries the concept, such as an apple verses a rabbit, two diferent forms, two different concepts.

Your expectation seems to be that if nothing exist, that we or anything else cannot exist at the same time. I could never show you the existence of nothing, without first giving it form. The definition of nothing uses a thing to convey the absence of it.
It conveys nothing within the boundry of form. A fundamental entity must be made of nothing. I.E There are no parts.
I believe that in order to figure out what nothing is that you have to compare it to everything. And everything is the opposite of nothing.
Existing is being present to you and therefore form must be the opposite of existing. Which could lead me to believe that the word form means thought to you. Although I believe that nothing is the partial. And that everything (existing) is infinite or everything that happens at once.
And another question if the present is unpredictable, could the present have form?
 
If you have beef with someone(s) you have not demonstrated your case.
True. But I plan no such demonstration, I can't possibly pick apart the overabundance of vague speculations posted recently. This is it from me, I'll step away until I see well-founded propositions to address.
 
True. But I plan no such demonstration, I can't possibly pick apart the overabundance of vague speculations posted recently.
You don't have to pick them apart, you just have to point out any one error, that is all.


This is it from me, I'll step away until I see well-founded propositions to address.
This is a claim, what is a well founded proposition? who determines which is and which isn't? All the knowledge you were taught was handed down to you, you didn't conceive it yourself, how do you know it was not misconceived?

"It is the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
 
Most of the stuff I said has been taught to me. But it is the order in which I speak it which makes it sensible. If the order did not make sense then I am sure that I would be wrong. Some of the stuff are my own quotations which I made up myself. And I have found many people who have written many things using other words in different orders to say the things as I have said so I shall not be so bold as to say that am the first to say these things.
I have changed my mind on things before and if anyone can disprove my simple explanations which are not hard concrete arguments then I will be glad to agree.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
This thread has pretty much degraded into complete nonsense, so I'm closing it.
 

Related Threads for: Why does anything exist than rather nothing ?

Replies
248
Views
28K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
51
Views
9K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top