Thread: Start with Nothing

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.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

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?

I agree that problems arise when you try to justify logic with logic. That might pose a problem to my argument, but no more than it does to any other argument.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

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.

I'll further explain P2. The premise isn't that "everything has a cause". In fact what I'm saying is in some sense the opposite. I am saying that you can trace every cause back to something that was uncaused. That has to be true. The only other conceivable option is an infinite regression of causes. But even then, that infinite sequence of causes would be something that exists and is uncaused.

I don't think it's so difficult to conceptualize that we can't meaningfully talk about it. If I can think about it, we should be able to talk about it. But I agree that we have to be careful.

I've been getting frustrated in the last page or so and am playing my part in arguing, but I'm not "mad at you" or anything. I was getting 'irritated' in the context of the argument at Wayfaerer, tommo and Darkmatters too, and I think you four happen to be my favourite people on this site... which now that I think about it is kind of an odd coincidence.