Thread: Start with Nothing

That or an endless list of creators. Or our universe always existed.

Originally Posted by Seroquel

It would have to be something not bound by the laws of our universe.

Something that our minds cannot even comprehend..

Yep, that's my conclusion too. OR at least cannot comprehend given the laws of our universe. Maybe if we learned the laws of our "mother" universe, but of course I don't know since I don't know what they could be.

This has actually been backed up by some evidence; that our universe could have spawned from a black hole, spewed out of another universe.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Like for instance the collapse of another universe, as proposed by (some theory or other, I don't know which). And that brings up this question - if the Big Bang was caused by the collapse of another universe, then would that be considered arbitrary or caused? I suppose it depends on which model of the universe is being postulated for the exercise.

The universe is then just redefined as a chain of 'universes' (for lack of a better name) 'collapsing' and starting new ones with a 'big bang'. The question is then is this universe caused?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

My argument doesn't assume that everything has to have a cause.

2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I agree for many cases, but logic itself is applicable everywhere. These issues can be reasoned about, as long as one does not rely on knowledge about the universe gained through experience.

Can logic justify itself? Can it tell whether or not I should eat a carrot or an apple? It is a tool that has applicability to many areas of inquiry but not all. Which is not to say that it is useless but it is limited, which is not news. I just wanted to point out the fallacy of mistaking our subjective intuitions for a universal law.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

1) Something exists.
2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason).
3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness.
------
4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead.
------
5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.

We run into problems when we structure deductive arguments with inductive premises like P2. P3 is just irksome (it does not deductively follow from the other premises) even the conception of nothingness is something… how can you structure a logical argument assuming the existence of non-existence? Logic tells us what is the case or what is not the case but in order to inference upon the latter it must examine the former.

This is why I wanted to veer the argument towards defining our terms because I don’t think we all realize the semantic confusion that this conversation always brings to the table. No offense intended but I believe you are falling into the language traps that you are accusing others of. Please don’t say fuck you to me, I assume that by starting this thread you had to presuppose people would pick holes in it.

I’m glad you defined nothingness as essentially non-being, something (see what I mean it is very hard to discuss this without falling into these traps) essentially void of attribute. There are “no logical problems with the conception of nothing” because logic simply does not apply to it (see again) in the first place.

Take the proposition “nothing exists” we know this to be necessarily false because the proposition contradicts itself. The validity of your whole argument rests on the existence of nonexistence. When you assert that “There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness” you are affirming the existence of something that is logically valid. The proposition is necessarily contradictory. The very conception of “nothing” does not refer to anything. Period. We can’t form logical arguments that presuppose this non-existence.

We cannot meaningful talk about nothingness. I realize you are more interested in the metaphysical aspect of nothing but I think it is equally important to analyze the language in which these metaphysical propositions are expressed. Like I said before if we structure an argument using ambiguous premises then it deductively follows that the argument is false. It is a castle built on sand.

I guess what I mean is that we should proceed with this conversation very carefully and rigorously to avoid linguistic confusions.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

This all seems to be solved if there was no first cause to the universe. Nothing only exists relative to the concept of something and vice versa, so can't they only exist together as necessary attributes of existence?

That's like saying that darkness only exists relative to the concept of light, so a world without light is impossible.

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm disagreeing with the premise that there was nothing before there was something.

That isn't a premise.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Can logic justify itself? Can it tell whether or not I should eat a carrot or an apple? It is a tool that has applicability to many areas of inquiry but not all. Which is not to say that it is useless but it is limited, which is not news.

Logic cannot do those things, but that is irrelevant. I didn't mean it can be applied to solve any situation. What I meant was that there's no possible reality in which logic can fail, in which A does not equal A.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

We run into problems when we structure deductive arguments with inductive premises like P2. P3 is just irksome (it does not deductively follow from the other premises)

Premises aren't supposed to follow from other premises. Conclusions are supposed to follow from premises. The premises themselves don't even have to be related. The only inductive premise is P1. P2 is just a logical fact.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

This is why I wanted to veer the argument towards defining our terms because I don’t think we all realize the semantic confusion that this conversation always brings to the table. No offense intended but I believe you are falling into the language traps that you are accusing others of.

Yes, I agree defining terms is important and was aware of it in the first post. I decided to define nothingness before even reading your request that I do. I don't think I'm falling into language traps, it's pretty clear to me what I mean by nothingness. I'm surprised there's so much confusion.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Please don’t say fuck you to me, I assume that by starting this thread you had to presuppose people would pick holes in it.

I didn't say fuck you to you, that was to tommo, and I was completely joking about it. (I said it because he responded to my argument when he knew I was drunk and that I wouldn't be able to defend myself properly).

So the rest of your problem with my argument is about the language used. You don't think that it's possible to talk about these issues because the 'nothing'/'something' terms are too confusing. Statements like "nothing exists" seem to contradict themselves, but conceptually they don't actually contradict themselves, right?

But as long as the person reading the argument realises what I mean by nothing, there shouldn't be a problem. It's like infinity. No one can grasp the concept of infinity, but we can still use it in mathematical calculations and to come to valid conclusions.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

That's like saying that darkness only exists relative to the concept of light, so a world without light is impossible

Well yeah, in multiple senses. Would darkness and color exist without eyes?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Well yeah, in multiple senses. Would darkness and color exist without eyes?

The lack of light would exist without eyes, in a physical sense. The sensation of darkness wouldn't, but I'm not talking about the sensation.

Well 'the lack of light' only exists relative to light.

Hence, nothing (the lack of something) only exists relative to something.

That's true for the purpose of conceptualizing darkness and nothingness. If we'd never experienced light, then we wouldn't really be able to conceptualize darkness. If we'd only experienced one color, we wouldn't have the concept of color. But the important thing is that, physically, it is possible for the world to not have any light. Whether or not we'd be capable of realizing that we're in darkness would be irrelevant.

I don't think it would be possible, but say it is, 'a universe with no light' is still a comparison to our universe with light.

I gave my response to that in my last post. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

I think your blending the actual hypothetical universe with our contemplation of it in this universe. In this hypothetical universe with no light, darkness would not exist, it only exists to us because we experience light and it's absence. We can look at this hypothetical universe and say it's in darkness, but that's only relative to the light in our universe. To someone living in that universe, darkness wouldn't exist, it would just be space or something. Contemplating a universe without it's electromagnetic effects is too much for me anyway lol

^ This argument is invalid. There are creatures in this universe who don't have eyes - to them the concept of darkness does not exist. Yet there is both light and darkness, whether they know about it or not. So the better conclusion is to say that in this hypothetical universe nothing would KNOW the CONCEPT of darkness - yet darkness would still exist. If you or I were able to go there we'd be aware of the darkness.

What you're saying suggests that nothing can exist unless someone or something is aware of its existence. You're implying that a tree that falls truly makes no sound unless something with ears is there to hear it.

The creatures in this universe who don't see light are just ignorant of it, this is not the same as a totally separate and hypothetical universe where there is no light, we wouldn't be able to go there. Your doing the same thing here, your blending the separate realities. We would only call the hypothetical universe dark because we're comparing it to light. In a totally separate reality without light, where this universe has no connection, it would not be "dark", as that implies the absents of something that doesn't exist in that reality, it would just be god knows what... I highly doubt such a universe would even be possible to talk about. Anyway, I wish I didn't feed into the whole alternate universe thing because the fact is we can only think/imagine with content that we experience in this universe, so it's always going to be relative to this universe. This is why "darkness" or "a world without light" has no independent meaning but with what we already experience, light. I think it's more necessarily empirical than you think.

Ok, I do see where you're coming from.

In a universe where no light at all exists - there's no point at all in defining the absence of it. To do so would require the knowledge of light. This round goes to you my friend.

jeez, I'm sorry for all the ranting, I really should be studying lol

I explained why our inability to conceptualize the darkness is irrelevant but you're ignoring that point completely. Yes, I agree that we'd have no concept of darkness nor of light. We wouldn't need a word to define it. But that doesn't matter. It would still be a fact that there are no electromagnetic light waves. Do you agree with that? That's all I'm saying.

Yes, but only to us, in this universe. That would not mean anything in a reality where electromagnetic waves do not exist. It would be like us saying that it's a significant fact that flying purple elephants don't exist, why should we consider they are a reality in some other universe? should we call our universe nonpurpleelephantish?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I explained why our inability to conceptualize the darkness is irrelevant but you're ignoring that point completely. Yes, I agree that we'd have no concept of darkness nor of light. We wouldn't need a word to define it. But that doesn't matter. It would still be a fact that there are no electromagnetic light waves. Do you agree with that? That's all I'm saying.

Yes, there would be no light - that statement is absolutely true. But darkness is simply a quality defined entirely by the absence of light. Just as cold is a negative quality describing heat. Heat and light are actually positive states. Cold and dark are nothing - only negative descriptors of those actual states. They are only absences.

Flying purple elephants don't exist.
I don't see the problem.

The electromagnetic waves would not exist. That's all I'm saying. Everything after the 'but' is irrelevant, since I'm not talking about our ability to conceptualize it. I'm wondering how many more times I'll have to say that, I'm getting sick of repeating it and then being straw-manned with the same arguments. Are people straw-manning me to be funny now or is what I'm saying really so hard to grasp?

Yes, they don't exist - but does their lack of existence exist, as a quantifiable thing?

The point is that darkness is not an existence, it is simply the lack of existence of light.

It doesn't matter if it's quantifiable or not. It doesn't matter if darkness is not 'an existence', whatever that means. As long as the state of there being no electromagnetic light waves is possible, the premise is valid.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Logic cannot do those things, but that is irrelevant. I didn't mean it can be applied to solve any situation. What I meant was that there's no possible reality in which logic can fail, in which A does not equal A.

When you said anywhere I thought you meant anywhere. Can the law of non-contradiction justify itself? It is the basic axiom of arithmetic (well one of them is a+0=a which is pretty similar) and logic but can it justify itself without resulting in a contradiction or having to create more axioms?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Premises aren't supposed to follow from other premises. Conclusions are supposed to follow from premises. The premises themselves don't even have to be related. The only inductive premise is P1. P2 is just a logical fact.

Oh ok. I misunderstood the structure of the syllogism; I just recognized the line separating the premises and conclusion (I usually use P1 and C to avoid confusion). P2 is a logical fact? The proposition “everything has a cause” can only be inferred by empirical observation not pure reason, remember the Hume discussion? However experience cannot justify causality either. If the proposition “Anything that exists has some first cause” is valid, then that cause would be something that existed to cause “anything” and would therefore be included in the set of “things that exist and are therefore caused”. The argument is subject to a regress.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Yes, I agree defining terms is important and was aware of it in the first post. I decided to define nothingness before even reading your request that I do. I don't think I'm falling into language traps, it's pretty clear to me what I mean by nothingness. I'm surprised there's so much confusion.

I have been previously infatuated with the concept of nothingness as well, I understand what you mean. If you are surprised there is so much confusion then perhaps we are on completely different pages at this point in the argument. What I mean is that when we talk about “nothing” we inescapably (a product of how our language works) conceive it as something; non-being, the state of non-affairs. It is simply inescapable.

I get very on edge when the definition of a word (nothing) includes itself in its definition (no thing). That raises a couple flags when we are trying to have a logical argument especially when using an ambiguous term like nothing.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I didn't say fuck you to you, that was to tommo, and I was completely joking about it. (I said it because he responded to my argument when he knew I was drunk and that I wouldn't be able to defend myself properly).

So the rest of your problem with my argument is about the language used. You don't think that it's possible to talk about these issues because the 'nothing'/'something' terms are too confusing. Statements like "nothing exists" seem to contradict themselves, but conceptually they don't actually contradict themselves, right?

But as long as the person reading the argument realizes what I mean by nothing, there shouldn't be a problem. It's like infinity. No one can grasp the concept of infinity, but we can still use it in mathematical calculations and to come to valid conclusions.

Linguistically, nothing refers (symbolically) to the state of non-affairs or non-existence. Language by its very nature bewitches us into speaking about nothing in a manner that makes it something. A state of non-affairs is something; an empty set is still a set. Language, as well as formal logic tells us “what is the case”. In this way the word nothing refers to no thing, it is an empty concept, pun intended.

Saying “nothing exists” results in a contradiction. Saying “nothing does not exist” is a tautology. The subject and the predicate refer to the same thing…which is nothing. The point is that we cannot meaningfully talk about nothing. To frank it is meaningless (semantically). This does not mean “nothing” does not exist (see, again we cant escape it) but that we just cannot meaningful talk about it, and inferences drawn from the existence or non-existence of nothing are always necessarily dubious to put it lightly.

If nothing existed this sentence would make sense.

Even if we say “talking about nothing is meaningless” we are presupposing that the predicate is referring to something (the subject ie what is the case)…which is nothing.

I’m not saying lets not talk about this, I am greatly enjoying the conversation it’s a great thread but I only originally wanted to bring to the table that we might want to tread carefully when talking about this kind of metaphysics. Scratch that, all metaphysics. Also And I resent the contention that the concept of nothingness is easy to grasp…its an abstraction (IMO that’s all it is) like infinity, meaning that it is not self-evident or verifiable. That’s just my opinion.

And I didn't think you said fuck you to me, I just didn't want to go down that road, in light of me being somewhat critical of your argument.