Thread: Start with Nothing

I was talking with someone today (who shall remain anonymous) when I stumbled upon a realisation. It's really simple, and quite obvious, now that I think about it. So I hope I don't end up looking like an idiot. It's also kind of hard to articulate, and it's easy to lose the thought.

While contemplating the initial reason for things, one must start with nothing. This is because, if you start with something, and that something has no cause for its existence, then that something is completely arbitrary. It could have not existed. The essence of everything is still nothingness, the thing that exists still sprung from nothingness. There are no 'laws of the universe' indicating that something is required to exist, because those laws would be something and so they cannot be the first thing.

One does not need any scientific knowledge to think about this. In fact, if you're using scientific knowledge to think about it, you're doing it wrong. You're trying to figure out why those scientific facts about the universe exist in the first place. You have to start with nothing.

So here's what I've concluded. Since you have to start with nothing, and only nothing comes from nothing, anything that does exist came about arbitrarily. I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary.

EDIT:

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.

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed?

Nothing is, unfortunately, neither something nor nothing. The word nothing falsely conveys what nothing is. Nothing renders concepts like void and space obsolete. In nothing, infinite space exists and infinite creation within that space.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed?

What do you mean? I don't understand. Using 'always' might be a bad idea since it implies the existence of time, which is something.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nothing is, unfortunately, neither something nor nothing. The word nothing falsely conveys what nothing is. Nothing renders concepts like void and space obsolete. In nothing, infinite space exists and infinite creation within that space.

Why are you assuming that nothingness includes space? It doesn't.

'always' as in timelessly lol

I think that when you try making justifications like this that it's completely pointless. As far as I'm concerned that whether the universe always existed, or somehow came into being, it's bloody strange.

Besides, I could completely invert your logic by stating "if there was no universe at all and nothing existed then even nothingness would not exist, therefore something must exist". I do not see valid justification for your first premise.


Tangent: I find it really hard to mentally get to grips with the idea that the universe itself not existing at all. It's easy to imagine myself not existing for instance, or a bunch of empty space, but when you imagine that space and time don't exist, and nothing would ever happen ever then that's when things get very weird to me.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Besides, I could completely invert your logic by stating "if there was no universe at all and nothing existed then even nothingness would not exist, therefore something must exist". I do not see valid justification for your first premise

If nothing existed, then there would be nothing. Nothing isn't part of something, so nothing wouldn't not exist.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

If nothing existed, then there would be nothing. Nothing isn't part of something, so nothing wouldn't not exist.

Except you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Nothingness is the state of non-existence, but that itself requires a certain set of conditions. Just like you cannot have empty space without the existence of space itself.

If there is no universe, then there cannot be a state of nothingness. Even the concept of nothingness and existence cannot exist.

I honestly don't see why it can't. I don't see the problem with nothingness being the state of things.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

when you imagine that space and time don't exist, and nothing would ever happen ever then that's when things get very weird to me.

That's the entire point right there.
You literally cannot have nothing and then something come out of it.
What would cause something to come out of nothing? Something would have to.

I think you're (Dianeva) getting confused with laws and how they exist. They only exist in the mind. Maybe not, but that's just something I got from the OP.

"I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary."
How? How can you have arbitrary or non-arbitrary from nothing?

I'm not talking about time - nothing existing one moment, then something existing the next. I'm talking about whatever exists, in the beginning.

Another way of thinking about what I'm saying is, to try to consider the first cause of everything. Eventually something has to have caused everything that exists. And what caused that cause? Nothing, by definition. So whatever it is, it exists or existed arbitrarily.

And I'm drunk so fuck you.

Without a universe, states do not exist.

Right, no states, nothing.

EDIT: You can call nothingness a state, but it really isn't. When I say nothing, I just mean nothing.

The OP is a little confused - some contradictions here and there. Basically there is no 'pre-existence'. Existence is eternal and it must be eternal because it includes time. There is no before time nor after time because before and after implicate the presence of time. So there literally is no nothingness.
We don't just have to use the argument from time. It's more obvious if you argue from space (space and time are both measures of existence). There is no 'outside of existence'.
No before, no after, no outside - existence is eternal and all-encompassing.
Your childhood premise to start with nothing is mistaken. Well, it just doesn't make sense.

(I've edited the OP, but if you've already read it you don't need to again. I just deleted a couple unnecessary paragraphs and added the deductive argument found at the bottom of this post.)

Originally Posted by JesterKK

Basically there is no 'pre-existence'. Existence is eternal and it must be eternal because it includes time. There is no before time nor after time because before and after implicate the presence of time. So there literally is no nothingness.

There is no assumption that time had something before it. If I used the word 'before', what I meant was the cause. The cause and effect might happen simultaneously. The effect might even be eternal. That doesn't defeat my argument.

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The OP is a little confused - some contradictions here and there.

If there are more, please point them out.


I'll put the portion I'm adding now in blue text:

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Causality is how we organize our experiences into a coherent whole, it is the very structure or form of these experiences. Saying "everything I experience has a cause" is one thing but to say that "therefore everything has a cause" is wading into the swamp of speculation.

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

Originally Posted by stormcrow

To be honest we should beware of using our intuitions as a starting point (for this particular argument) as well as deriving vague conclusions from vague premises. In conclusion, we really just don't know (about the origins of the universe) but I think it would be beneficial to weigh the "evidence" derived from our intuitions against the evidence derived from the scientific method. Our intuitions have a long, hilarious history of being erroneous which is not to say that they are necessarily always wrong, but that we should tread carefully when we speculate about events beyond our experience.

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.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

If nothing exists, and therefore there can be nothing moving to measure and no observer to make that measurement, then how could time be said to exist in any meaningful way?

I don't know why the absence of an observer to measure the nothingness would cause it to be impossible.

I think the mistake many people are making is assuming that nothingness still involves something, somehow. I suppose because there's a word used to describe it, and actual nothingness is difficult to imagine. When I say nothing, I mean the absence of anything.

I apologise that the OP was confusing. What I'm trying to say is true, I think. The reasoning is pretty solid. I suspect I haven't explained it correctly.

I define nothingness to be literally nothing. No space nor time. The absence of other things. Here's the argument in deductive form.


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.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

There is no assumption that time had something before it.

Oh, well in that case, I think my whole post is pretty irrelevant! *Insert derpface here*

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I don't know why the absence of an observer to measure the nothingness would cause it to be impossible.

Ok, forget the observer thing. I get another derpface for that one. I'm just basically asking - does time have any relevance or meaning if nothing can move (because nothing exists)?

This thread hurts my brain.

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.

4 and 5 are where you're going wrong. Which is basically your whole argument lol

How can something (like the universe) be caused by something in a sea of nothing?
This is why I said I think you're getting confused between what's in the mind and what is not in the mind.
What action, when nothing, would cause the universe?

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?

Originally Posted by tommo

What action, when nothing, would cause the universe?

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

Something that our minds cannot even comprehend..

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..

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.

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 Dianeva

There is no assumption that time had something before it. If I used the word 'before', what I meant was the cause. The cause and effect might happen simultaneously. The effect might even be eternal. That doesn't defeat my argument.

That's entirely distorting the concept of cause and effect. Cause and effect cannot happen simultaneously by definition. Einstein even assumed that causation could not be violated in his special relativity - causes must come before effects in all cases.

Yes existence is arbitrary and it must be arbitrary because it cannot be logically caused, but is that really something people didn't already know? The argument might fall down when it comes to the second point: 'anything has a cause'. You can't say that and then go onto say it can be traced back to something which doesn't have a cause/to something which doesn't exist. If it is the case that everything has a cause, then there is no 'first' cause, there can only be infinite regression. The very assertion that nothingness/non-existence can exist is a clear contradiction.

My point is that assuming things exist and those things require causes, there must be infinite regression - no first, no before. To talk about what comes last or after we have to assume everything has an effect which is another argument for another day I guess.

It is similar to the idea that stuff can't come out of nothing. People say that because stuff can not be created or destoryed, the universe must have always existed. However, there are theories that the net energy of the universe is 0. So that the universe is basically made of nothing, that was split apart into positive and negative energies. So if you follow that, all the universe can come from nothing, but doesn't violate any rules of physics. Nothing was created or destoryed in the creation of the universe, it only changed forms.

It could be that the first cause is that nothing is fundmentally unstable, because absolute nothing shouldn't exist. And because of that events took place that eventually created the universe. You could say that there must be a reason 'nothing' is unstable and thus a cause for it, but since you are talking about something that can't exist from our view point you might never get an answer.

People express problems with my argument, I explain why they're wrong, and then someone else (sometimes the same person) comes back with the exactly same problem, and I have to explain it again. If you get my explanation and tell me what's wrong with it, that's one thing, but it's like my explanation is completely ignored. So I don't know why I'm bothering explaining now, when it's probably just going to happen again a few posts later.

Originally Posted by JesterKK

That's entirely distorting the concept of cause and effect. Cause and effect cannot happen simultaneously by definition.

What about "as a logical consequence of"? An effect can't come before a cause while dealing outside of time.

Originally Posted by JesterKK

Yes existence is arbitrary and it must be arbitrary because it cannot be logically caused, but is that really something people didn't already know?

As I said in the OP, I did suspect it was pretty obvious. It was just something I'd never consciously realised before, so I thought it might be worth bringing up.

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The argument might fall down when it comes to the second point: 'anything has a cause'. You can't say that and then go onto say it can be traced back to something which doesn't have a cause/to something which doesn't exist. If it is the case that everything has a cause, then there is no 'first' cause, there can only be infinite regression.

Show me exactly where I said that everything has a cause. Can't find it? Didn't think so...

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The very assertion that nothingness/non-existence can exist is a clear contradiction.

No, it isn't. As I brought up before, it only seems to be because of our language. Actual non-existence is entirely possible.

Originally Posted by Alric

It is similar to the idea that stuff can't come out of nothing. People say that because stuff can not be created or destoryed, the universe must have always existed. However, there are theories that the net energy of the universe is 0. So that the universe is basically made of nothing, that was split apart into positive and negative energies. So if you follow that, all the universe can come from nothing, but doesn't violate any rules of physics. Nothing was created or destoryed in the creation of the universe, it only changed forms.

It could be that the first cause is that nothing is fundmentally unstable, because absolute nothing shouldn't exist. And because of that events took place that eventually created the universe. You could say that there must be a reason 'nothing' is unstable and thus a cause for it, but since you are talking about something that can't exist from our view point you might never get an answer.

The problem I have with this post is that you seem to be assuming that the laws of physics and other 'rules' already apply 'before' (bad term to use) any existence happened.

Let's sit back and wait for some proof eh? There's many possibilities at the moment, I'm sure someone will find out which is right.