Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?

[Keep_Relentless]

Because nothing is nothing. It is not anything. Nothing cannot be.
Do not be trapped in the great illusion of language. :)

[ronjanec]

Ok, I get it now K.R. You are saying that because there can't be nothing, there must always be something?

[Keep_Relentless]

Yes, and that something must be moving. We can't refer to nothing, nothing is not there. I think we use relations of different existents to have the concept of "nothing" that we do, for example, a coin is not in your pocket, or nothing is the opposite of something, or something does "not" do.

[ronjanec]

K.R,

You are making some good comments in regards to 'nothing' here, but your original premise in regards to why there must be something instead of nothing is wrong for a number of reasons;

I talked about 'nothing' in my response to GregoryGreg in my most recent post in your 'Does the Big Bang Theory Imply God's Existence?' thread. So I will not have to again go to the trouble of going over the same old ground again, could you please read this, and then get back to me here or there?

[Keep_Relentless]

The word was in the same sentence does not mean that there was actually nothing or nothingness actually existing before literally: The word was only works in the context of an observation.

Nothing can be used as a negation or illogically treated as an object. I usually use quotation marks or say "nothingness" when referring to the latter, apologise if I haven't here.

[Gregorygregg1]

Yes, and that something must be moving. We can't refer to nothing, nothing is not there. I think we use relations of different existents to have the concept of "nothing" that we do, for example, a coin is not in your pocket, or nothing is the opposite of something, or something does "not" do.

Would you agree that an absence of space and mater would qualify as nothing? Are you saying that an absence of space and mater cannot exist? Or do you conceive of nothing from a different perspective great ruller of the visible universe?

[ronjanec]

K.R,

It was a very hard to understand post because of the nature of the subject matter and you are back in 9 minutes! You obviously did not spend hardly any time thinking about what was said here. Are you here to actually learn something K.R, or just make speculative posts about a number of different things?

[Keep_Relentless]

Would you agree that an absence of space and mater would qualify as nothing? Are you saying that an absence of space and mater cannot exist? Or do you conceive of nothing from a different perspective great ruller of the visible universe?

I don't mind an absence of space and matter provided something is somewhere. Energy is something else to consider, certain forces and phenomena, consciousness. My premise is that nothingness in totality is an illogical state, for there to not be an "everything". I have wondered about physical boundaries for a long time but think that it is boundless, but finite.

[Keep_Relentless]

K.R,

It was a very hard to understand post because of the nature of the subject matter and you are back in 9 minutes! You obviously did not spend hardly any time thinking about what was said here. Are you here to actually learn something K.R, or just make speculative posts about a number of different things?

It would probably take a long time if it was the first time considering alike statements, as many here can attest to nothingness is a very hot topic. Of course I am here to learn, and learn through speculation. (:

[ronjanec]

K.R,

Can I give you some advice? You are obviously a very bright young man: Read their posts, and then ask questions, from people like BioWizard, Mtbturtle, Lincoln, Marshall, Lomax, Paralith, Xcthulhu, Canady, and Forest Gump, and then spend a lot of time thinking about what they actually say to you, instead of posting so much yourself(I have personally read, and asked the same people a number of questions in the past, and I have learned a great deal from them in their particular subject area).

Speculation without knowledge and three bucks will buy you a hot dog in Chicago K.R. You should actually be learning the basics in a number of fields, instead of wasteing your time wildly speculating on so many very difficult subjects.

You really seem to be interested in metaphysics/ontology(me too): This is by far the most difficult and hard to understand branch of philosophy. Go to a university library, and try to get some books to read on this: This will help you to understand a number of things in the same field(By the way, your first project should be to try to first learn the meaning of existence, if you really want to understand the meaning of subjects like nothing existing).

[Keep_Relentless]

I must say that I agree. Far too introverted for my own good, huh. xD Okay, I will be taking a break from this.

[ronjanec]

I must say that I agree. Far too introverted for my own good, huh. xD Okay, I will be taking a break from this.

I was right about you when I said you were a very bright young man......

[Gregorygregg1]

I must say that I agree. Far too introverted for my own good, huh. xD Okay, I will be taking a break from this.

I was right about you when I said you were a very bright young man......

Ronjanec,
Socrates Said that every young man possesses all the knowledge of humanity, he just needs to be led to it. You might try a bit of Socratic questioning instead of dismissing an inquiring mind. It seems an abdication of responsibility if you are as informed as you imply. Please be kinder.

[mtbturtle]

http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=21819 - another recent Why Something Rather than Nothing

[ronjanec]

Greg,

I had some very good reasons for saying what I did to K.R and I was only trying to help him, but out of respect for him, and to avoid any possibility that a second and third party public discussion about him may in any way embarass him, I am of course not going discuss the same reasons.

I will say that it was definitely not my intention to discourage K.R in any way, or make him feel not welcome here, I just noticed a few things about the way he was participating on the forum and wanted to bring them to his attention.

When you admonished me "be kind" to him, you implied that I had said the same things to him out of some kind of personal malice, and I am of course personally offended by this. This from the same person who just made fun of him recently by calling him "great ruler of the visible universe" in response to one of his posts?

Greg, I have a sneaky suspicion that the real reason that you made this post, was caused by my somehow offending you with something I said recently. If this is true, it was definitely not my intention to personally offend you in any way and I hope you will accept my apology.

[ronjanec]

http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=21819 - another recent Why Something Rather than Nothing

mtbturtle(and Marshall if you are reading this because of your previous interest in the same type of topic),

If science is right in it's belief that God did not create the universe, and there is only one universe, would it be possible for man to ever actually determine why the universe actually began?

Wow, what a very difficult question to try to answer with man's level of knowledge today! Who can in any way today predict where man's level of knowledge will be in the very very distant future to possibly try to answer the same question?(if we are still around of course)

I am not personally willing to even hazard a wild guess on this one.

[sponge]

This from the same person who just made fun of him recently by calling him "great ruler of the visible universe" in response to one of his posts?

Hi ronjanec,
I don’t want to get involved here (my ears don’t need punches from both directions) and I guess Greg is big enough to defend himself but I needed to let you know that the title ‘great ruler of the visible universe’ was not meant as any kind of jibe. It came up when Greg, K_R, weakmagneto, and a few more of us were having some fun together on a light-hearted thread in the Odds and Ends forum. It was called ‘How Would You Take Over The World?’ Check it out.

[ronjanec]

This from the same person who just made fun of him recently by calling him "great ruler of the visible universe" in response to one of his posts?

Hi ronjanec,
I don’t want to get involved here (my ears don’t need punches from both directions) and I guess Greg is big enough to defend himself but I needed to let you know that the title ‘great ruler of the visible universe’ was not meant as any kind of jibe. It came up when Greg, K_R, weakmagneto, and a few more of us were having some fun together on a light-hearted thread in the Odds and Ends forum. It was called ‘How Would You Take Over The World?’ Check it out.

Thank you sponge for making me aware of this: Without knowing this, I of course thought it was a really sarcastic comment from Greg. I apologize for the same mistake Greg.

[ronjanec]

Everyone,

I have a really interesting question(or paradox) for everyone in regards to this same discussion, and the question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?';

If many people including myself have stated in the past that they do not believe that the beginning of existence could have possibly had a pre-existing cause of any kind, why are we having this discussion on Why something rather than nothing then?(I have talked about this in the past on the forum)

[Gregorygregg1]

Everyone,

I have a really interesting question(or paradox) for everyone in regards to this same discussion, and the question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'; 

If many people including myself have stated in the past that they do not believe that the beginning of existence could have possibly had a pre-existing cause of any kind, why are we having this discussion on Why something rather than nothing then?(I have talked about this in the past on the forum)

On the face of it, semantically nothing cannot exist.  That we exist confirms that something exists.  But the presence of something does not preclude conditions that could lead to the absence of the something.  For instance, the existence of consciousness does not preclude the absence of consciousness.  When consciousness ceases to exist, nothing takes it's place.  In that sense, nothing exists by replacing existence when existence ceases.  We might call this the paradox of the nothing.

[ronjanec]

Everyone,

I have a really interesting question(or paradox) for everyone in regards to this same discussion, and the question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'; 

If many people including myself have stated in the past that they do not believe that the beginning of existence could have possibly had a pre-existing cause of any kind, why are we having this discussion on Why something rather than nothing then?(I have talked about this in the past on the forum)

On the face of it, semantically nothing cannot exist.  That we exist confirms that something exists.  But the presence of something does not preclude conditions that could lead to the absence of the something.  For instance, the existence of consciousness does not preclude the absence of consciousness.  When consciousness ceases to exist, nothing takes it's place.  In that sense, nothing exists by replacing existence when existence ceases.  We might call this the paradox of the nothing.

Hi Greg,

An absence of something, or in this particular case and discussion, a complete or total absence of any and all existence existing anywhere, can at least exist as an observation that man can make today(Why something rather than nothing?)

Martin Heidegger is famous for asking, and then trying to answer the same question, in a lecture he gave in Germany almost a hundred years ago(the same lecture was also recorded in a book that is still published today, or 'An Introduction to Metaphysics')

The discussion I was actually trying to start and address here in my post(versus a discussion about nothing), was how can someone say and think that there could be no possible existing cause for existence because nothing could have possibly existed before to actually cause this first existence, and the same person on the other hand then turns around and asks himself the question why did all existence begin in the first place?(or again, why something rather than nothing?)

Or in other words, if you are saying on the one hand that nothing could have possibly existed to actually cause the first existence(something) in the first place, why are you now asking why? Thereby appearing to imply that there was in fact actually a cause or a reason for the first existence to begin with, and in the process appearing to completely contradict yourself!

[Gregorygregg1]

Hi Greg,

An absence of something, or in this particular case and discussion, a complete or total absence of any and all existence existing anywhere, can at least exist as an observation that man can make today(Why something rather than nothing?)

Martin Heidegger is famous for asking, and then trying to answer the same question, in a lecture he gave in Germany almost a hundred years ago(the same lecture was also recorded in a book that is still published today, or 'An Introduction to Metaphysics')

The discussion I was actually trying to start and address here in my post(versus a discussion about nothing), was how can someone say and think that there could be no possible existing cause for existence because nothing could have possibly existed before to actually cause this first existence, and the same person on the other hand then turns around and asks himself the question why did all existence begin in the first place?(or again, why something rather than nothing?)

Or in other words, if you are saying on the one hand that nothing could have possibly existed to actually cause the first existence(something) in the first place, why are you now asking why? Thereby appearing to imply that there was in fact actually a cause or a reason for the first existence to begin with, and in the process appearing to completely contradict yourself!

The concept of first cause is a paradox, so cannot have a basis in reality. There is the possibility that all mater and energy represents the transition between dimension and nothingness. Perhaps it occupies the boundary between the two, and always has. There is a bit of evidence for a "Big Bang", which screws with any steady state theory, but should not be presumed to be any more than a local event. What, after all is something that probably only affected the dimensions of a few hundred billion light years when we're talking of infinity? Human imaginations often fail secondary to the tendency to view everything from a human perception of scale.

[ronjanec]

Hi Greg,

An absence of something, or in this particular case and discussion, a complete or total absence of any and all existence existing anywhere, can at least exist as an observation that man can make today(Why something rather than nothing?)

Martin Heidegger is famous for asking, and then trying to answer the same question, in a lecture he gave in Germany almost a hundred years ago(the same lecture was also recorded in a book that is still published today, or 'An Introduction to Metaphysics')

The discussion I was actually trying to start and address here in my post(versus a discussion about nothing), was how can someone say and think that there could be no possible existing cause for existence because nothing could have possibly existed before to actually cause this first existence, and the same person on the other hand then turns around and asks himself the question why did all existence begin in the first place?(or again, why something rather than nothing?)

Or in other words, if you are saying on the one hand that nothing could have possibly existed to actually cause the first existence(something) in the first place, why are you now asking why? Thereby appearing to imply that there was in fact actually a cause or a reason for the first existence to begin with, and in the process appearing to completely contradict yourself!

The concept of first cause is a paradox, so cannot have a basis in reality. There is the possibility that all mater and energy represents the transition between dimension and nothingness. Perhaps it occupies the boundary between the two, and always has. There is a bit of evidence for a "Big Bang", which screws with any steady state theory, but should not be presumed to be any more than a local event. What, after all is something that probably only affected the dimensions of a few hundred billion light years when we're talking of infinity? Human imaginations often fail secondary to the tendency to view everything from a human perception of scale.

My post was by mistake posted before I had a chance to finish it, so I will have to delete the part that was posted.

[ronjanec]

Hi Greg,

An absence of something, or in this particular case and discussion, a complete or total absence of any and all existence existing anywhere, can at least exist as an observation that man can make today(Why something rather than nothing?)

Martin Heidegger is famous for asking, and then trying to answer the same question, in a lecture he gave in Germany almost a hundred years ago(the same lecture was also recorded in a book that is still published today, or 'An Introduction to Metaphysics')

The discussion I was actually trying to start and address here in my post(versus a discussion about nothing), was how can someone say and think that there could be no possible existing cause for existence because nothing could have possibly existed before to actually cause this first existence, and the same person on the other hand then turns around and asks himself the question why did all existence begin in the first place?(or again, why something rather than nothing?)

Or in other words, if you are saying on the one hand that nothing could have possibly existed to actually cause the first existence(something) in the first place, why are you now asking why? Thereby appearing to imply that there was in fact actually a cause or a reason for the first existence to begin with, and in the process appearing to completely contradict yourself!

The concept of first cause is a paradox, so cannot have a basis in reality. There is the possibility that all mater and energy represents the transition between dimension and nothingness. Perhaps it occupies the boundary between the two, and always has. There is a bit of evidence for a "Big Bang", which screws with any steady state theory, but should not be presumed to be any more than a local event. What, after all is something that probably only affected the dimensions of a few hundred billion light years when we're talking of infinity? Human imaginations often fail secondary to the tendency to view everything from a human perception of scale.

If I had to pick one modern philosophical statement that is far more famous than all the rest, I would have to pick Heidegger's again "Why something rather than nothing?". Even many people who have never taken a philosophy course in their life have heard of this one.

Yet, when you actually think about this for little awhile, this appears to be a completely illogical statement!

Heidegger famously speculating on what could possibly be a first cause(why, or the actual reason something began in the first place), when he basically said that there was nothing existing before the first something existed to possibly cause anything in the first place("rather than nothing"), would again at least appear to be a completely illogical statement, or "cannot have a basis in reality" like Greg said;

Why is Heidegger's again "Why something rather than nothing?" still discussed with such complete reverence today in many college metaphysics classes, when this appears to be a completely ridiculous statement in the first place?

[Positor]

A better question would be "Why is there this something rather than something else?". The "something else" could include any number of relative "nothings", but not an absolute "nothing" which (I agree) makes no sense.

[Gregorygregg1]

When I said "cannot have a basis in reality, I did not mean to imply that it does not have a basis in existance. My imagination can provide me with a mechanism for placing nothing within the relm of existance, but not in reality, because at the instant nothing exists it ceases to exist. Kind of like time.

[ronjanec]

A better question would be "Why is there this something rather than something else?". The "something else" could include any number of relative "nothings", but not an absolute "nothing" which (I agree) makes no sense.

Hi Positor, I always enjoy talking with you about this kind of 'stuff': You almost always have an excellent grasp of what the conversation is actually about, and almost always then 'get' and then actually address the important points.

"Why is there this something rather than something else?" I really like the way you put this: Did you come up with this on your own?;

But one problem with your new version of the question(at least in this particular discussion), is that it also implies that there was always something existing(even if the somethings were as you called them "relative nothings" existing), versus Heidegger's question that stated that something actually had a beginning at some point(or again, the implied something beginning from absolutely nothing existing before)

Back to my most recent complaint regarding this: How could(I believe) all the professors, in all the colleges everywhere in the world, for almost one hundred years somehow miss something that at least now appears to make absolutely no sense? Do you have any idea how famous this saying is?

[ronjanec]

When I said "cannot have a basis in reality, I did not mean to imply that it does not have a basis in existance. My imagination can provide me with a mechanism for placing nothing within the relm of existance, but not in reality, because at the instant nothing exists it ceases to exist. Kind of like time.

Greg,

With all this talk about nothing again on the forum, maybe I, or someone else who is also familar with the subject, should start another thread strictly devoted to this same subject in the very near future?

[Gregorygregg1]

When I said "cannot have a basis in reality, I did not mean to imply that it does not have a basis in existance. My imagination can provide me with a mechanism for placing nothing within the relm of existance, but not in reality, because at the instant nothing exists it ceases to exist. Kind of like time.

Greg,

With all this talk about nothing again on the forum, maybe I, or someone else who is also familar with the subject, should start another thread strictly devoted to this same subject in the very near future?

That would be great. One of my favorite things is to sit around with a cold beer and think about nothing. Another is to write about it. Unfortunately I wlii be heading off to spend two weeks at a summer school for the arts. It's remote, and I don't know if there is Internet access. I might have to wait till I get back to hash nothing out with you. That sounds like a rock tune, "I can't do nothing now no how."

[Keep_Relentless]

I am not sure "Why is there something rather than nothing?" necessarily asks "Why did something begin?" It certainly seems like it, as it appears to ask "Why did it not not-begin?", but as I see it we seem to be in agreement that existence coming from nothing, the focus of both latter questions, is illogical. First we can assume that it is illogical. Can existence suddenly become non-existence? This I think is a very central question to this discussion. The OP of this thread expressed my position that treating nothing as something and manipulating it as we do in these questions is senseless. If you do not agree, I wonder how you can even use your faculties in such a way as even to proclaim the state of "nothingness" one that can "be".

Lomax has posted before a challenge to the apparent contradiction of something beginning from nothing, which is to ask the question "Can something begin without beginning from anything?" I have also heard this argument elsewhere and unfortunately I have dismissed it out of hand as lingual manipulation. I am still inclined to think that it is so, because it assumes that influence can come from nowhere. Of course, I think that those supporting free will must argue the same.