The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on January 30th, 2017, 3:31 pm 

Whenever man makes an observation that "there is nothing existing" somewhere, or notices that there is a particular absence of any quantity of something or someone existing somewhere, he then actually causes "nothing existing" to exist in the universe in some way, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone making the same type of logical or mathematical observation;

The big problem here, is when anyone takes the "there is part of "there is nothing existing somewhere" observation literally, or believes that there is literally nothing existing existing somewhere, or the "nothing existing" in and of itself actually exists somehow or someway as some thing or object in objective reality. This should be an obvious and very illogical contradiction of terms: Or "nothing existing" is "some thing existing", or "no thing existing" is "some thing existing"

Figuring out the distinction between "there is nothing existing" existing logically and correctly in any observation, and "there is nothing existing" "also" at least appearing to exist illogically and spatially somehow in objective reality, caused me a great deal of personal aggravation, and was an extremely difficult and also very tricky subject to work with;

"How can nothing ever exist in the first place, when nothing can ever exist in the first place to begin with!?" "Yet, when I say I have no money or nothing in the bank, there is still nothing existing in the bank, or an absence of my money existing in the bank!?" "What existed before anything else existed, there had to be nothing existing right!?" "But if nothing existed before everything else, that makes nothing existing a something or some kind of thing that supposedly existed before every thing!?" "That's completely illogical!?" "How can I tell anyone that it is illogical for nothing existing to ever exist in the first place, when the minute I say this I contradict myself and then make nothing exist!?" Just a few of my earlier and sometimes completely wrong thoughts on this.

"There is nothing existing somewhere", or again, "there is nothing existing in the bank" in regards to my personal money. How can a very logical observation be absolutely correct on the one hand, and also completely wrong and also completely illogical in regards to objective reality? It took me quite awhile, but I finally did figure it all out with one final personal Eureka! type observation that explained it all to me;

"There is nothing existing" somewhere or anywhere "outside" the mind in an observation, can only exist INSIDE the mind, except for nothing existing somewhere outside the mind in word, symbol, or number representative existence. Or again, the "outside" the mind in the same type of observation was basically all in our heads right from the very beginning(!), the only place this "nothing existing" somewhere could ever exist. And if you really stop to think about it, how else could an existence as completely illogical as nothing existing thought to be actually existing somewhere ever exist anywhere else!

An observation that "there is nothing existing somewhere outside the mind", was again never ever supposed to be taken literally by anyone in the sense of nothing actually existing somewhere spatially outside or independent of our minds(with the again exceptions of nothing existing outside our minds in word, symbol, or number form);

And of course, "There is nothing existing somewhere" could have never have existed in any possible form outside the mind(again, except for word, symbol, or number form) or have any existing being outside the mind because nothing could have ever have existed here in the first place. Nothing existing (somewhere or anywhere) means exactly that...nothing existing, and that also of course includes nothing existing(duh).

The illusion that "nothing existing"(or say for example the concept of "nothingness" discussed in science today) could somehow "also exist outside or independent of our minds spatially" in any real or actual object or thing form(again, besides word symbol or number existence), was again caused by a very important distinction about this being missed and not recognized by people in the first place, or again the reality that nothing existing somewhere outside the mind could only possibly exist inside the mind (And by the way, the same is true about all observed "absences existing somewhere", for basically the same reasons)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby RoccoR on February 10th, 2017, 7:13 pm 

Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing
ronjanec, Braininvat, et al,

"Nothing," is an undefined term. In the physical world, it not so different than the existence of a "point" in space; or the differentiation of space from time (space-time). Even the term, time, is not the exact same for me as it is for you. My "now" is not your "now."
[indent]
[quote=ronjanec » January 30th, 2017]Whenever man makes an observation that "there is nothing existing" somewhere, or notices that there is a particular absence of any quantity of something or someone existing somewhere, he then actually causes "nothing existing" to exist in the universe in some way, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone making the same type of logical or mathematical observation;[/quote][/indent]
(COMMENT)

This question of "nothing" is much like the cannot be defined, simply because if you could observe the nothingness, how would you describe it. If you could observe the nothingness, then you are detecting the absence of something (undefined) from some place (a known location). But a location has a coordinate. A coordinated has a dimensionless fixed point. But nothing has no fix coordinate; "X" by "Y" by "Z" + "Time." We consider, in this case, as time being in discrete quantities of successive approximations. But that is not a true definition of time as we know it in modern physics.

To keep from boring you, I'll defer to Professor Brian Green in his video "The B-Theory of Time." https://youtu.be/H1WfFkp4puw

"Nothing" is a state for which we can not otherwise define; like "infinity" or "endlessness" or "boundlessness."

Just My opinion,
Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 11th, 2017, 10:16 am 

Rocco,

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say here: I was again trying to say that "nothing existing" exists correctly as an observation that someone can make that an absence of some particular kind exists somewhere, but the observed "nothing existing", or absence of some particular kind existing somewhere, does not actually or literally exist somewhere spatially outside the mind;

Or in other words, the observed "nothing existing" or observed absence cannot be some kind of abstract thing existing somewhere outside the mind, because nothing could actually exist to exist there or somewhere. And by the way, welcome to the forum Rocco.

(I realize my op was rather overwhelming, and I am going to try to make my thoughts on this as simple as I can from here on. But people still have to realize that the concept of "nothing existing" has confounded man for many centuries for a number of very good reasons, the main reason again being a very important distinction that man missed that I am trying to point out and explain here)
Last edited by ronjanec on February 11th, 2017, 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs
RoccoR liked this post


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 11th, 2017, 10:51 am 

By the way Rocco, Brian Green does not know what he is talking about in regards to "nothing existing" because he treats this as a "thing" that can exist spatially outside the mind in his writings about this("man is basically made of nothing", "nothing (the thing) can travel faster than the speed of light" etc.)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 11th, 2017, 12:54 pm 

"the nothing itself nothing's"!? Yeah, "that helps" No ships: I doubt even that stupid Nazi was dumb enough to say that about "nothing"...Link?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 11th, 2017, 2:44 pm 

RoccoR - would you say that the claim "nothing" cannot be defined, because if you could observe the nothingness, you could not describe it if not true is false, or meaningless?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby TheVat on February 11th, 2017, 3:04 pm 

mod note - since we seem to have worked out the misunderstanding, I removed all the offtopic stuff about it.

Sorry, Nosh, I think your one pertinent observation about Heidegger got trashed, too. But the quote remains in Ron's reply. Welcome back.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7334
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby dandelion on February 11th, 2017, 3:06 pm 

A link for the quote NoShips gave, page 193-
https://religiousstudies.stanford.edu/W ... HYSICS.pdf
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 11th, 2017, 3:55 pm 

"There is, or was nothingness existing somewhere"? When anyone sees this type of wording in any scientific application or reference you have to realize that you are dealing with complete nonsense here;

Or in other words, an absolute or total absence of all possible existence theoretically thought to be existing somewhere spatially? An existence(or again, "nothingness" in this particular context) cannot spatially exist somewhere by not existing somewhere This is completely illogical!
Last edited by ronjanec on February 11th, 2017, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 11th, 2017, 5:15 pm 



Thanks dandelion. I read his 'An Introduction to Metaphysics' many years ago. I am trying to keep my posts short and simple on this subject right now and on track with my efforts in further explaining the op, but maybe if I have some more time in the future I will try to make some comments on what he (wrongly) said here.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby dandelion on February 11th, 2017, 8:24 pm 

Ok, Ron, cool.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby RoccoR on February 12th, 2017, 8:53 am 

Lomax, et al,

To define "nothingness" you have to be able to detect/observe the space/volume under evaluation. To do that, the mere act of detection places some form of energy in or through the space or void. In doing so, the space/void has something within it or passing through it (it has something in it).

RoccoR - would you say that the claim "nothing" cannot be defined, because if you could observe the nothingness, you could not describe it if not true is false, or meaningless?

(COMMENT)

The term "nothingness" is simplistically assumed to be an actual state. Such a state would have to have characteristics within nature (reality). For instance, it would have to be void of all energy (absolute zero). I would think that entropy at absolute zero is defined to be zero. Can such a condition actually exist in reality?

How do you (for instance) detect something that is at absolute zero? (No thermodynamic temperature.) What impact would that have on the fabric of space?

  • NOTE: A true singularity can (theoretically) could reach absolute zero in the state at which the elements of the universe are broken-down into a zero energy pile of quarks at the core. But then that would not qualify as "nothingness."

Like "String Theory" --- "Nothingness" cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, then it is not science (meaningless).

Just My Thought.

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 12th, 2017, 10:32 am 

Rocco and everyone,

A state or condition of absolutely nothing existing somewhere("nothingness") again makes absolutely no sense to me: If there is theoretically nothing existing somewhere, there can't be anything or any existence existing here, and that would of course include the theoretical nothing existing somewhere, or an impossible state or condition of "nothingness" existing somewhere;

Any state or condition existing anywhere in the universe requires something existing or some thing existing to exist in the same state or condition. If there is theoretically no thing existing here, there cannot be any possible state or condition existing here.

"Nothingness" is just a fancy word for an absence of some kind theoretically existing somewhere in the universe : And just like I discussed in the op, no "absence" can exist independent of the mind anywhere in the universe, or anywhere in objective reality.

What some would wrongly describe as "nothingness" existing somewhere, to me has always been just "space" existing somewhere, and I will talk about this later.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs
RoccoR liked this post


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 12th, 2017, 1:34 pm 

Man is basically or mostly made of nothing? I imagine what Brian Green is trying to say here is his mistaken contention that there is "nothing existing" between the nucleus of the atom and it's electron(s);

Again, it is impossible for an observation that "there is nothing existing somewhere outside the mind", for this same mental observation to actually exist outside the mind independent of the same observation...anywhere.

So what we are instead talking about existing here must be a something of some kind of thing existing here, and that something existing here is (I believe) physical three dimensional nonparticulate space.

(Any of you guys or gals over there in the SCF threads finally getting tired of rambling on and on and on about "time dilation", and possibly interested in challenging me on some of the stuff that I am saying here?)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 12th, 2017, 2:24 pm 

Rocco - if "nothing" and "nothingness" are undefinable, doesn't that render your own claim meaningless?

Your argument reminds me of the Wittgenstein aphorism: "In order to draw a limit to thinking, we should have to think both sides of this limit". But I'm wary of this sort of argument - I can locate the walls of my room without having to leave it.

Actually, we can define the empty set in mathematics as easily as any other. Definition takes different forms, and doesn't have to be descriptive - it can be "contextual" or "substitutive".

The logic of your argument can be reverse-engineered into what W.V.O. Quine calls "Plato's Beard", an old (and shady) argument that everything exists. His limpid essay On What There Is argues that this is due to a confusion between naming and denoting. It's a must-read for anyone planning on wading through these murky waters.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 13th, 2017, 2:28 am 

By the way Ronjanec, in the spirit of aforementioned contextual definition, I think we can define "nothing exists" as "for all x, it is not the case that (x exists)" or "Ax¬Ex". Similarly for "there is nothing in the bank" we can say "for all x, it is not the case that (x is in the bank)", or "Ax¬(Bx)". This emancipates us from the grammatical trick which makes it sound like we are saying "there exists some x such that x is nothing".

Still, with a nod to Quine: I think we can still demonstrate the logical necessity of something existing. Suppose that nothing exists: then it is not the case that something exists which is equal to itself: then for all things which exist, they are not equal to themselves. Therefore our supposition is false. Or, in the language of logic:

| ¬Ex
| ¬Ex(x=x)
| Ax¬(x=x)
Ex

(Proof by contradiction.)

I know many would consider this a problem with the rules of FOPL and how we treat the empty set. But if we can say that of mathematical language, I think we can say it of natural language too - in other words we are free to avoid reification by saying that "nothing exists" is just a trick of language and has nothing to do with making "nothing" or "nothingness" actually exist. It also free us from the Parmidean idea that thinking the thing makes the thing - an idea which would leave us with a very fantastical ontology indeed, as well as no real concept of truth.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 13th, 2017, 9:23 am 

Well, all of that went completely over my head Lomax: My not having an education, or background of any kind in formal logic principles and application.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs
RoccoR liked this post


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 13th, 2017, 1:27 pm 

An observation that there is nothing existing somewhere outside the mind, can only exist inside the mind, except for nothing existing existing outside the mind in word, symbol, or number form or representation.

Man really screwed this one up here: He took a very logical observation that there is nothing existing or a particular absence of some kind existing somewhere, and then somehow started to believe that his observations about nothing existing or absences existing somewhere outside his mind, "also" meant that this same type of concept or observation could somehow actually or literally exist in some impossible form somewhere in the universe outside his mind "independent" of word, symbol, or number form or representation.

Again, the observed "nothing existing" and "absences existing" somewhere outside his mind, only existed inside his mind...always. Or again, this nothing existing somewhere, or absences existing somewhere, was basically all inside his head!
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 13th, 2017, 3:05 pm 

ronjanec » February 13th, 2017, 2:23 pm wrote:Well, all of that went completely over my head Lomax: My not having an education, or background of any kind in formal logic principles and application.

I gave you plain English explanations. The FOPL bits are just mathematically rigorous re-wordings of the plain English bits. I did this to make sure you wouldn't need such a background.

ronjanec » February 13th, 2017, 6:27 pm wrote:An observation that there is nothing existing somewhere outside the mind, can only exist inside the mind, except for nothing existing existing outside the mind in word, symbol, or number form or representation.

Man really screwed this one up here: He took a very logical observation that there is nothing existing or a particular absence of some kind existing somewhere, and then somehow started to believe that his observations about nothing existing or absences existing somewhere outside his mind, "also" meant that this same type of concept or observation could somehow actually or literally exist in some impossible form somewhere in the universe outside his mind "independent" of word, symbol, or number form or representation.

I think you're close; the confusion seems to me more simple. Man thinks the word "nothing", and infers from this that there must be such a thing as nothing because he has a word for it. This is to confuse naming with denoting. Either way, even if he really were making an observation, it would only be the observation that's "inside" his mind, not the thing observed. I think it's a pseudo-problem as simple as this which perplexed every philosopher from Parmenides to Heidegger, somehow.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 13th, 2017, 5:44 pm 

"that there must be such a thing as nothing because he has a word for it" Also a good point about this Lomax, but much too simplistic a reason to explain why man missed the boat on this for so long, and I actually speak from personal experience here;

Very early on when I personally started working on this, I very easily identified some of the ways "nothing existing" was actually able to exist(or again, word, symbol, and number form or representation), but that did not explain or help me in my mistaken original belief that nothing existing could "still" somehow exist despite all my at least seemingly logical objections to the contrary(I talked about some of this in the op) "outside" or "independent" of an observation;

Again, it wasn't until I finally realized that the nothing existing outside/"outside" my mind in the observation, was actually existing only inside my mind, that I again had my own personal eureka! moment here, and I was then able to personally understand the meaning of nothing existing, unlike so many others who had tried and failed before me.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 13th, 2017, 6:48 pm 

ronjanec » February 13th, 2017, 10:44 pm wrote:Again, it wasn't until I finally realized that the nothing existing outside/"outside" my mind in the observation, was actually existing only inside my mind, that I again had my own personal eureka! moment here, and I was then able to personally understand the meaning of nothing existing, unlike so many others who had tried and failed before me.

Okay, but I clench and cringe at talk of things existing "in" the mind. What does it mean to say a cow is in my mind? It certainly wouldn't fit in my skull. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to admit that nothing is in your mind ;)

Besides all this I have no idea how one actually pictures "nothing" "in" their mind. You might picture a black hole or my bank balance, but you can't literally picture a thing which is nothing, not even in your mind. In other words I think that's just an accidentally opaque way of saying "I thought of a word to which no properties correspond". ie. you confused naming for denoting.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 13th, 2017, 10:29 pm 

Lomax,

You don't have to also ascribe or picture a description of "nothing existing somewhere" in an observation to mistakenly comprehend that it is "still possible" for nothing "to exist somewhere";

When I was working on this, all I cared about was my observation that despite all my best efforts to the contrary, and my best logic, "nothing" still at least appeared to exist somewhere "independent" of just word, symbol, and number existence.

I keep thinking that this is impossible, stupid, crazy, illogical("if nothing does exist somewhere, then it must be some thing existing somewhere", "or no thing existing somewhere is some thing existing existing somewhere" "That is a completely ridiculous and illogical contradiction of terms!"), but again, and no matter how hard I tried, nothing still appeared to be existing somewhere because of the nothing existing somewhere outside my mind inside my mind illusion.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 13th, 2017, 11:35 pm 

ronjanec » February 14th, 2017, 3:29 am wrote:Lomax,

You don't have to also ascribe or picture a description of "nothing existing somewhere" in an observation to mistakenly comprehend that it is "still possible" for nothing "to exist somewhere";

When I was working on this, all I cared about was my observation that despite all my best efforts to the contrary, and my best logic, "nothing" still at least appeared to exist somewhere "independent" of just word, symbol, and number existence.

I keep thinking that this is impossible, stupid, crazy, illogical("if nothing does exist somewhere, then it must be some thing existing somewhere", "or no thing existing somewhere is some thing existing existing somewhere" "That is a completely ridiculous and illogical contradiction of terms!"), but again, and no matter how hard I tried, nothing still appeared to be existing somewhere because of the nothing existing somewhere outside my mind inside my mind illusion.

By all means, but what I'm arguing is that you held that illusion precisely because of a grammatical confusion. Perhaps you didn't. But in the way people argue for the existence of nothing, they always seem to be confusing themselves with ambiguous language.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 14th, 2017, 12:30 pm 

Lomax,

Yes, the many mistakes I made early on(and the mistakes others probably made) sometimes involved "semantics", or my(and their) trying to understand the meaning of different words like "nothing" "something" and also "existing" in relation to the same conundrum, but I would like to move on from this type of discussion if we can;

My just saying the concept of "nothing" or "nothing existing" cannot exist outside the mind somewhere independent of word, symbol, or number existence, and then showing how people like myself and probably others made the same type of mistakes does not actually prove my statement true and neither does my op, so I am now going to try and do just that;

The word "thing" basically means a singular existence of some kind. Nothing existing, or no thing existing, would then mean no existence of any kind existing: Nothing existing somewhere, would then mean no existence of any kind theoretically existing somewhere...and that is impossible;

All existence is made up or composed of existence: The existence a person or thing is made of is actually what exists in the first place when we say someone or something exists. The existence a person or thing is made of is also called their existing being. All existence existing also requires a place or location to exist, or a spatial presence somewhere...now.

"Nothing" theoretically existing somewhere, cannot exist anywhere, because no possible existence of any kind could possibly exist to exist...anywhere.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby DragonFly on February 14th, 2017, 1:32 pm 

So then, what is to be made of the truth that Existence has no contrast class, making it a necessity and therefore ever, as eternal, with no option not to be or to cease being, it never created, as all that is, ever on the move, never still? It transforms into temporary arrangements, which process might be called 'creative', but this is not true creation, for what transforms ever was, is, and will be. Apparently there is no true creation, as something from 'Nothing' ('Nothing' cannot even even be meant).

FitzOmar's great description, especially the middle quatrain:

A Hair perhaps divides the False and True;
Yes; and a single Alif were the clue—
Could you but find it—to the Treasure-house,
And peradventure to The Master too;

Whose secret Presence through Creation’s veins
Running Quicksilver-like eludes your pains;
Taking all shapes from Máh to Máhi and
They change and perish all—but He remains;

A moment guessed—then back behind the Fold
Immerst of Darkness round the Drama roll’d
Which, for the Pastime of Eternity,
He doth Himself contrive, enact, behold.

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DITr464OOQ
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 14th, 2017, 2:06 pm 

"that existence has no contrast class, making it a necessity and therefore ever, as eternal... Always pleased to see you show up in any of my threads DragonFly, but we have been through this one before(no pun intended);

But the concept of no before is again an option or contrast to something or someone always existing, and thus eliminating the problem that there then must have been the agreed very illogical nothing "literally" existing before contrast.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 14th, 2017, 2:41 pm 

ronjanec » February 14th, 2017, 7:06 pm wrote:But the concept of no before is again an option or contrast to something or someone always existing, and thus eliminating the problem that there then must have been the agreed very illogical nothing "literally" existing before contrast.

Agreed by whom? We certainly can't use FOL to prove that "for all x, there is some y such that y was before x". I don't think we can even prove it in free logics - it certainly doesn't derive directly from the axioms at any rate. The fact that some people have a hard time accepting the possibility of a first moment is proof of - no pun intended - nothing.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby Lomax on February 14th, 2017, 2:42 pm 

And it doesn't compel us to reify "nothingness" into an entity either, I should add.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 14th, 2017, 3:12 pm 

Agreed by whom? Agreed by common sense logic Lomax, or CSL. :) If there was conceptually speaking no possible existence of any kind existing before the beginning of all existence, there could not have then been any kind of before state or condition existing in any way before this, hence the no before concept being a viable option or contrast to something always existing.

No, this does not prove in and of itself that some form of existence could not have existed always like I think DragonFly believes, but it does represent the only other logical option to an "Infinite Regress" type theory.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Meaning of Nothing Existing

Postby ronjanec on February 14th, 2017, 3:27 pm 

Lomax » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:42 pm wrote:And it doesn't compel us to reify "nothingness" into an entity either, I should add.


Who said anything about compelling? I just mentioned that some people believe "nothingness" existed as some weird "entity" before the beginning of everything.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Next

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests