An Arguement for the Existence of a Timeless Non-Physical Cuase

[Peter_Plato]

Existence, for example, exists as a concept.

If existence only exists as a concept, then everything is merely concept because the ground of everything is concept. Are you sure you want to go there?

 

[centurionguard]

Explain your rational reasons for thinking this to be the case.

No rational needed…if you noticed I did say (“If”). The argument really with all due respect is redundant because anything that can be said prove or negate the (“human concept”) of nothingness falls outside the scope of human understanding.

 

[ReapReason]

No rational needed…if you noticed I did say (“If”). The argument really with all due respect is redundant because anything that can be said prove or negate the (“human concept”) of nothingness falls outside the scope of human understanding.

Why does it fall outside the scope of human understanding?

 

[ReapReason]

Nothing can have truth, and that truth is that it contains no truth, which indeed makes it something, yet still nothing, consistent with its original premise.

All you are saying here is that we can understand the word nothing conceptually. This in no way implies that it is therefore logically possible for there to be an ontological state of absolutly nothing. You are confusing the concept with actual reality. You are without justfication changing the meaning of nothing from that which merely symbolises the absence of a possible state in “comparison” to real things, to that which is a logically possible state in its own right without reference to possible objects such as a bike or a car.

In fact you yourself say here that a “true” state of nothing by itself has no objective “truth”. This is the problem. You want to claim that it can be an objectively true state of affairs, but at the same time say that it is also not an objectively true state of affairs. The contradiction arises because a state cannot both be objectivily true and be the absence of all objective truth at the same time. Like you say there is no objective truth in nothing whatsoever; but you try to break out of this problem by confusing the contexts in which the word is used by implying that nothing is a real object that lacks particular objects that are distinct from this quasi standalone object you call nothing. But nothing by defintion is not a true/real object. It is the negation of particular and possibly real objects. It is purely a comparitive concept.

 

[ReapReason]

There is an ambiguity in the word nothing that allows the kind of confusion your points highlight. The word nothing is a compound of the words “no” and “thing” which can be taken as the absence of something, as in your blank paper example. There is no writing on the paper, therefore there is nothing, i.e., no-thing on the paper, understood as “the absence of what is expected.” This use of no-thing is understood because it is stated with reference to an expected quality.

What ReapReason is talking about is absolute nothingness, the absence of all being. On the surface this sounds as if it ought to be unproblematic because absence and being both make sense and form the ”data" that you asked about previously, just as square and circle form the data of the concept squared circle. The question though, is: Can you square a circle? Even though a question seems on the surface to be possible, the answer for it is clearly, No, because a contradiction arises. The resulting answer is incoherent, no meaning can be ascribed because you cannot have a circle with corners.

A similar question can be formed for absolute nothingness: Can you coherently remove everything and have absolute nothingness? The answer again is clearly, No, because nothingness is not a thing that you can have. It has no ontological status. Nothingness in this sense cannot exist on its own, it absolutely depends on the existence of something. It is a “privation” of being, completely parasitic on there being something to begin with. No-thing makes no sense without a “thing” to be the “no” about.

What ReapReason argued is that a state of absolute nothingness is incoherent (a contradiction) because it is meaningless without presuming something. So something is a necessary precondition for nothing to be meaningful. Absolute nothingness, i.e., the state of not requiring something, cannot, at the same time, be the state of presuming something, so there is a logical inconsistency, a contradiction, that arises.

Now the case could be argued that absolute nothingness is a kind of “factual” contradiction, as in “after the fact.” A table cannot logically be a chair, but as a matter of fact it might have been a chair if it wasn’t a table. So the question could be asked if absolute nothingness might have existed as a possibility, i.e., the mere absence of everything, simply non-being, instead of the being that we have.

In a sense, it is our understanding of the word nothingness that limits it to a dependence on something, so this is a factual or semantic contradiction. Can we rightfully ascribe to it a kind of ontological status? Can our “factually” limited idea of absolute nothingness force reality to conform to it? Is it a true logical contradiction?

If it is true that “from nothing, nothing comes” then clearly there is a factual case that since there exists something now, there could not have been a time of absolute nothingness, which I think is the crux of the cosmological argument.

Somewhere along the line ReapReason’s argument does a sort of piggyback on the cosmological argument. He may be “skirting” the idea of the possibility of absolute nothingness as an alternative to somethingness, which is your point.

But is he?

Does it make any sense to speak of the non-existence of existence? That existence might not have existed?

I enjoyed reading this. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Nice to know that my arguement isn’t completly incomprehendable.

Not sure if my arguement is piggy backing or is in need of piggy backing the cosmological arguement.

At least that is not what i am trying to do. I am trying to create an independent arguement.

 

[norain]

All you are saying here is that we can understand the word nothing conceptually. This in no way implies that it is therefore logically possible for there to be an ontological state of absolutly nothing. You are confusing the concept with actual reality. You are without justfication changing the meaning of nothing from that which merely symbolises the absence of a possible reality in “comparison” to real things, to that which is a logically possible state in its own right without reference to possible objects.

In fact you yourself say here that a “true” state of nothing by itself has no objective “truth”.

Nope. I asked you if “nothing is nothing” is true or not. The answer is true. So there is the objective truth you keep denying.

“Nothing” carries with it something in terms of ontology. That it denotes nothing is its meaning. That meaning or concept exists. “Nothing” as a substance does not. You confuse the two and insist on a contradiction that does not exist.

 

[norain]

Reapreason, what is it that we are talking about?

A. We are talking about the meaning of “nothing”.
B. We are not talking about anything at all.

So is it A or B?

 

[ReapReason]

Nope. I asked you if “nothing is nothing” is true or not. The answer is true. So there is the objective truth you keep denying.

“Nothing” carries with it something in terms of ontology. That it denotes nothing is its meaning. That meaning or concept exists. “Nothing” as a substance does not. You confuse the two and insist on a contradiction that does not exist.

You have not addressed my argument. A conceptual description of nothing is not the same thing as saying that absolutely nothing is ontologically possible. It just means that it is possible to have a concept of nothing.

An abstract concept is just a concept regardless of whether or not the “concept” exists in your head. Things don’t exist outside of your head just because you can have a concept of them. The concept of nothing is not the same thing as an actual state of nothingness.
It seems that you want to claim that an actual state of nothingness exists in your head.

My posts are there for you to see.

If you refuse to address my argument and instead feel compelled to repeat that which has been refuted several times; then it seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[ReapReason]

Reapreason, what is it that we are talking about?

A. We are talking about the meaning of “nothing”.
B. We are not talking about anything at all.

So is it A or B?

We are talking about whether of not absolutely nothing can be an objective state of affairs.
Your straw-man does nothing to further the discussion.

 

[norain]

You have not addressed my argument. A conceptual description of nothing is not the same thing as saying that absolutely nothing is ontologically possible. It just means that it is possible to have a concept of nothing.

Okay, I think we can work on this. What exactly do you mean that something is ontologically possible? I suspect you’re limiting the definition to fit your argument, which is perhaps why I keep rejecting it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter,

I think one must be clear about the distinction between what is being described, and the act of describing. “meta-whatever” is what they usually call it.

Existence, for example, exists as a concept.

Nothing can have truth, and that truth is that it contains no truth, which indeed makes it something, yet still nothing, consistent with its original premise.

How can a “truth …that… contains no truth” and “something, yet still nothing” be coherent ideas? These sound as comprehensible as square circle or married bachelor. Just because words can be used together does not mean anything comprehensible has been said. I think you just refuted yourself with these two statements.

The fact that we can freely talk about it and can have some general agreement to what we are talking about proves it, that nothing is ontologically (should I also say epistemologically?) something.

It is not clear that we are “freely” talking about it. A couple of incoherent statements do not form general agreement by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Portofino]

The earliest philosopher to promulgate the argument that is being presented here – “that the being of non-being is a contradiction in terms”–was the Greek philosopher Parmenides.

What I think Peter Plato was getting at in a recent post is that, experientially speaking, we use the word “nothing” as more of a relative term, and not an absolute metaphysical term. For example – what’s in the bag? And we respond, “nothing at all.” But there is something in the bag, after all, even if it be only air molecules (oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc.).

Parmenides’ rejection of nothing was, ironically, not helpful to the development of scientific thought, however airtight it was (ha ha) in terms of metaphysics. The Greek Atomists – Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus–posited that reality was composed of indivisible particles called atoms, and that atoms had to move through something that did not contain atoms (otherwise, they would be packed in like sardines and incapable of motion). For this, they posited “The Void,” a concept which Parmenides decried vigorously. For Parmenides, a Void --empty space–would be tantamount to Nothing, to non-Being. The Being of Non-Being was impossible.

We now know that a kind of de facto nothingness does exist–“empty space”–but it is not the nothingness that is being discussed here.

Thus, wikipedia relates:

“Vacuum is space that is empty of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for “empty” or “void”. An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure. Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call “vacuum” or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. The Latin term in vacuo is used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum.”

But this is not what Reap Reason is referring to, when he refers to Nothing. He is referring to Nothingness as a metaphysical property of non-Being.

The irony to me is that Parmenides and the Atomists, however vehemently they disagreed with each other, may both have been right – just in different respects.

 

[empther]

norain, in post 127, wrote:

Reapreason, what is it that we are talking about?

A. We are talking about the meaning of “nothing”.
B. We are not talking about anything at all.

So is it A or B?

Forget it, norain. He will never nail down what he’s saying.
The whole point of a thread like this is to keep people running around in circles forever.

 

[Portofino]

For those who are interested, more from wikipedia regarding arguments for and against “The Void,” which pitted Parmenides against the Greek Atomists.

“The atomistic void hypothesis was a response to the paradoxes of Parmenides and Zeno, the founders of metaphysical logic, who put forth difficult to answer arguments in favor of the idea that there can be no movement. They held that any movement would require a void—which is nothing—but a nothing cannot exist. The Parmenidean position was “You say there ‘is’ a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void.” The position of Parmenides appeared validated by the observation that where there seems to be nothing there is air, and indeed even where there is not matter there is something, for instance light waves.
The atomists agreed that motion required a void, but simply ignored the argument of Parmenides on the grounds that motion was an observable fact. Therefore, they asserted, there must be a void. This idea survived in a refined version as Newton’s theory of absolute space, which met the logical requirements of attributing reality to not-being. Einstein’s theory of relativity provided a new answer to Parmenides and Zeno, with the insight that space by itself is relative and cannot be separated from time as part of a generally curved space-time manifold. Consequently, Newton’s refinement is now considered superfluous.”

It appears the mistake made by Parmenides is that the Void was not truly nothing, but more of an “empty something” Not nothingness, but a kind of emptiness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For those who are interested, more from wikipedia regarding arguments for and against “The Void,” which pitted Parmenides against the Greek Atomists.

“The atomistic void hypothesis was a response to the paradoxes of Parmenides and Zeno, the founders of metaphysical logic, who put forth difficult to answer arguments in favor of the idea that there can be no movement. They held that any movement would require a void—which is nothing—but a nothing cannot exist. The Parmenidean position was “You say there ‘is’ a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void.” The position of Parmenides appeared validated by the observation that where there seems to be nothing there is air, and indeed even where there is not matter there is something, for instance light waves.
The atomists agreed that motion required a void, but simply ignored the argument of Parmenides on the grounds that motion was an observable fact. Therefore, they asserted, there must be a void. This idea survived in a refined version as Newton’s theory of absolute space, which met the logical requirements of attributing reality to not-being. Einstein’s theory of relativity provided a new answer to Parmenides and Zeno, with the insight that space by itself is relative and cannot be separated from time as part of a generally curved space-time manifold. Consequently, Newton’s refinement is now considered superfluous.”

It appears the mistake made by Parmenides is that the Void was not truly nothing, but more of an “empty something” Not nothingness, but a kind of emptiness.

It is an interesting statement about the advancement of scientific ideas that eminent scientists like Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss continue to define (confuse?) nothingness as the quantum vacuum (Parmenidian Void?). It seems that Greek thought often flushed out the critical issues in science - issues that remain issues even today. The more things change the more they remain the same! Another Greek thought!

Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν.
“We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.”
-Heraclitus

 

[Portofino]

Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν.
“We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.”
-Heraclitus

Nice Heraclitus quote

I wonder whether the concept of “Zero” was such an elusive one because it touched upon the very paradox of nothingness. Zero as a relative term is quite comprehensible – 0 apples (here, but many elsewhere), 0 dollars (ditto), 0 straws (ditto). But if 0 is conceived of as “nothing”–the complete absence of quantity–it becomes more paradoxical.

“Numbers are quantities; zero is a non-quantity. Therefore, zero is not a number, but the absence of a number.”

from science IQ.com:

"Many concepts that we all take for granted sounded strange and foreign when first introduced. Take the number zero for instance. Any first-grader can recognize and use zeros. They sound so logical and are such a basic part of how we do math. Zero equals nothing. What could be simpler? Yet early civilizations, even those that had a great proficiency with numbers, didn’t have a concept for zero and didn’t seem to miss it.
Before the time of Christ, early Babylonians and Hindus from India began using a symbol that eventually evolved into our numeral 0. You can see the Babylonian symbol…and the zero that we use today comes from the Hindu symbol. Both cultures used it to tell one number from another. For example, to distinguish a 4 from a 400 they would use the symbol for zero twice. But they didn’t use zero as a numeral. They wouldn’t compute 400 - 0 = 400. This was an enormous conceptual leap nonetheless, for it led to our modern-day concept of place value. It is much easier to represent twenty bags of grain with the numeral 2 and the symbol 0 than as twenty separate marks as other cultures did.

The concept of zero stayed pretty much to the peoples of the fertile triangle and the Indus peninsula. The Greeks and Romans didn’t use zero. And neither did the post-Roman European cultures who continued to use Roman numerals. It wasn’t until the Moor invasions of Northern Africa and Southern Europe that the concept of zero both as a place holder and a numeral began making its way into Europe. The Italian mathematician Fibonacci was one of the first to present the concept of zero to Europe. Slowly, over the centuries, the Europeans began using Arabic numbers, including zeros. They were reluctant adaptors, for they also continued to use Roman numerals. But zero’s time had come and that’s a good thing, for advancements in mathematics lean heavily on this symbol for nothing."

Says another article: “Most mathematicians note that what makes zero so difficult to deal with is the fact that it’s not even really a true number. They propose that it’s just a concept. It’s a way to begin measuring a set of numbers, but since zero is technically nothing, it remains a concept rather than anything concrete.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wonder whether the concept of “Zero” was such an elusive one because it touched upon the very paradox of nothingness. Zero as a relative term is quite comprehensible – 0 apples (here, but many elsewhere), 0 dollars (ditto), 0 straws (ditto). But if 0 is conceived of as “nothing”–the complete absence of quantity–it becomes more paradoxical.

“Numbers are quantities; zero is a non-quantity. Therefore, zero is not a number, but the absence of a number.”

…Says another article: “Most mathematicians note that what makes zero so difficult to deal with is the fact that it’s not even really a true number. They propose that it’s just a concept. It’s a way to begin measuring a set of numbers, but since zero is technically nothing, it remains a concept rather than anything concrete.”

Division by zero is an interesting correlative to this. Does the answer approximate infinity or simply an error as calculators respond? How can you make zero groups from a number of objects? Yet the inverse of multiplying by zero is clearly zero.

 

[ReapReason]

norain, in post 127, wrote:

Forget it, norain. He will never nail down what he’s saying.
The whole point of a thread like this is to keep people running around in circles forever.

I explained exactly what i was saying, and peter Plato helped alot by attempting to explain my argument in clearer terms, and yet neither you or norain seem able to grasp the simple distinction between asking what the abstract concept of nothing is and the question of whether or not absolutely nothing is a logically possible state of affairs.

These are simple things. Perhaps you should question whether or not it is your arrogance and pride that is stopping you from understanding what is being said? Or perhaps you are just finding it far too difficult to grasp concepts such as nothing and its implications when presented in metaphysical terms. If so, i am sorry that you are having these difficulties; however, your accusations against me is flawed and short sighted.

 

[ReapReason]

Nice Heraclitus quote

I wonder whether the concept of “Zero” was such an elusive one because it touched upon the very paradox of nothingness. Zero as a relative term is quite comprehensible – 0 apples (here, but many elsewhere), 0 dollars (ditto), 0 straws (ditto). But if 0 is conceived of as “nothing”–the complete absence of quantity–it becomes more paradoxical.

“Numbers are quantities; zero is a non-quantity. Therefore, zero is not a number, but the absence of a number.”

from science IQ.com:

"Many concepts that we all take for granted sounded strange and foreign when first introduced. Take the number zero for instance. Any first-grader can recognize and use zeros. They sound so logical and are such a basic part of how we do math. Zero equals nothing. What could be simpler? Yet early civilizations, even those that had a great proficiency with numbers, didn’t have a concept for zero and didn’t seem to miss it.
Before the time of Christ, early Babylonians and Hindus from India began using a symbol that eventually evolved into our numeral 0. You can see the Babylonian symbol…and the zero that we use today comes from the Hindu symbol. Both cultures used it to tell one number from another. For example, to distinguish a 4 from a 400 they would use the symbol for zero twice. But they didn’t use zero as a numeral. They wouldn’t compute 400 - 0 = 400. This was an enormous conceptual leap nonetheless, for it led to our modern-day concept of place value. It is much easier to represent twenty bags of grain with the numeral 2 and the symbol 0 than as twenty separate marks as other cultures did.

The concept of zero stayed pretty much to the peoples of the fertile triangle and the Indus peninsula. The Greeks and Romans didn’t use zero. And neither did the post-Roman European cultures who continued to use Roman numerals. It wasn’t until the Moor invasions of Northern Africa and Southern Europe that the concept of zero both as a place holder and a numeral began making its way into Europe. The Italian mathematician Fibonacci was one of the first to present the concept of zero to Europe. Slowly, over the centuries, the Europeans began using Arabic numbers, including zeros. They were reluctant adaptors, for they also continued to use Roman numerals. But zero’s time had come and that’s a good thing, for advancements in mathematics lean heavily on this symbol for nothing."

Says another article: “Most mathematicians note that what makes zero so difficult to deal with is the fact that it’s not even really a true number. They propose that it’s just a concept. It’s a way to begin measuring a set of numbers, but since zero is technically nothing, it remains a concept rather than anything concrete.”

amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476

Have you read this book yet? Its good.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Division by zero is an interesting correlative to this. Does the answer approximate infinity or simply an error as calculators respond? How can you make zero groups from a number of objects? Yet the inverse of multiplying by zero is clearly zero.

Division by zero is a mathematically invalid operation, so it is not simply an error. The fact that 1/x as x–>0 tends towards infinity does not mean that 1/0 is actually infinity.