Ex-Nihilo: a meaningless concept

[Oreoracle]

Metaphysical babble aside, I think mathematicians deal with “nothingness” in the most precise fashion, through the notion of the empty set. I will illustrate:

0A. If something does not exist, it cannot have properties

It depends on what you mean by “having a property”. For example, in classical logic, a proposition such as “if a pig can fly, its wings are polka-dotted” is vacuously true because the antecedent is false. This seems weird, but it is the most natural choice in a bivalent logic (a logic with only two truth values). To say it is false would require a counterexample, namely a flying pig whose wings lack polka-dots.

The same convention arises in math through the empty set. The empty set has, ironically enough, more properties than any other set, because any claim about its elements is vacuously true. Every element of the empty set is named Bill Cosby, for instance.

0C. If something does not exist, it cannot be empty.

This is another case in which the empty set would prevent confusion. The elements of the empty set don’t exist. The empty set does exist and is empty. The utility in the concept is that when we wish to invoke nothingness in a conversation, we have a name for its container. This is better than giving nothingness itself a name, since people will invariably argue that something must exist if it can be named, identified, defined, etc.

1. Consider the set of things that exist. If absolutely nothing exists, then the set is empty.
2. If the set of things that exist is empty, it does not contain itself.

And now we’re entering dangerous territory. Naïve set theory is fine until you start wantonly generating sets like “the set of all that exists” out of the blue. We don’t want to accidentally stumble into Russell’s Paradox, so we need a treatment of set theory that is more precise, such as ZFC set theory.

This is an oversimplification, but basically, under ZFC, you can 1) construct sets, or 2) identify subsets of sets that you have constructed. You cannot usually invent larger sets that have not been carefully constructed, and you certainly can’t just say, “this set comes from the set of all sets”. The set of all sets is precisely the sort of thing Russell warned us about.

I know that what I’ve said here is likely nothing new to you, but I think the language of set theory (and not the naïve kind!) is more suited to your needs than loose English and metaphysical gobbledygook.

 

[ynotzap]

I agree with JapaneseCappa in his statement :If something does not exist it can’t have properties.
The statement is self-evident, it needs no explanation although one can be given. The word properties has a universal meaning, it is derived from the word proprius meaning one’s own, a quality common to all members (univerally to all things) regarded as being possessed by.

The universal quality being possessed by all things is existence If something does not exist, it can not claim existence as it’s own, therefore it can not have property. Nothing is the absence of something, property is something, therefore Nothing can’t have properties

 

[Oreoracle]

I agree with JapaneseCappa in his statement :If something does not exist it can’t have properties.
The statement is self-evident, it needs no explanation although one can be given. The word properties has a universal meaning, it is derived from the word proprius meaning one’s own, a quality common to all members (univerally to all things) regarded as being possessed by.

But again, this is not the case in classical logic. “All flying pigs have polka-dotted wings” is true in classical logic. It is an example of a vacuous truth.

 

[ynotzap]

Metaphysical babble aside, I think mathematicians deal with “nothingness” in the most precise fashion, through the notion of the empty set. I will illustrate:

Answer: You have already prejudiced the dialogue with a judgement or opinion formed before the facts are known, and the opinion is usually unfavorable. Metaphysics is babble? Research the background of your famous mathematician and see if they don’t enter into metaphysical thought.

It depends on what you mean by “having a property”. For example, in classical logic, a proposition such as “if a pig can fly, its wings are polka-dotted” is vacuously true because the antecedent is false. This seems weird, but it is the most natural choice in a bivalent logic (a logic with only two truth values). To say it is false would require a counterexample, namely a flying pig whose wings lack polka-dots.

Answer: use privious post, in addition to this: where did the proposition come from, objective reality? flying pigs, and polka dotted wings? Imagination? Vacuously true, empty truth, subjective truth due to pure imagination? Because the antecedent is false, where did that come from, the imagination? Is it false because we know that pigs can’t fly? Reality vs imagination. What are the two truth values, to say its a flying pig , whose wings lack polka dots. You used an objective fact, that pigs don’t fly, not gotten from the imagination, and then you use this fact in an imagined situation, then you call it classic logic, You are using logic in a non existent situation, the word “if” says it all. One value is based on objective reality, the other value is based on subjective reality, not reality at all

The same convention arises in math through the empty set. The empty set has, ironically enough, more properties than any other set, because any claim about its elements is vacuously true. Every element of the empty set is named Bill Cosby, for instance.

Answer:
Those words, vacuouosly true, how can truth be empty, or am I defining it wrong? It sounds like it might be true in an imagined situation, but anything can be true in an imagined situation, but it’s nothing, fiction, not real. I can see where you can give a set the name Bill Cosby, or something else, why not, in imagination you can fly like Peter Pan

This is another case in which the empty set would prevent confusion. The elements of the empty set don’t exist. The empty set does exist and is empty. The utility in the concept is that when we wish to invoke nothingness in a conversation, we have a name for its container. This is better than giving nothingness itself a name, since people will invariably argue that something must exist if it can be named, identified, defined, etc.

answer:
the human intellect in order to express the absence of something, none-being and non-existing uses the negative or counter expression, such as truth, falsehood, light, darkness, heat, cold. All these expressions describe the absence truth, light, heat, and in so doing give one the logical, abstract positive truth, or objective condition. When we hear someone say "It doesn’t exist, I know they know what I mean, and I don’t have to explain it, it is self-evident Your system doesn’t really clarify it, I find it mixed and confusing, and I think most people if not all would too, the empty set does exist in one’s imagination, and is empty

And now we’re entering dangerous territory. Naïve set theory is fine until you start wantonly generating sets like “the set of all that exists” out of the blue. We don’t want to accidentally stumble into Russell’s Paradox, so we need a treatment of set theory that is more precise, such as ZFC set theory.

This is an oversimplification, but basically, under ZFC, you can 1) construct sets, or 2) identify subsets of sets that you have constructed. You cannot usually invent larger sets that have not been carefully constructed, and you certainly can’t just say, “this set comes from the set of all sets”. The set of all sets is precisely the sort of thing Russell warned us about.

I know that what I’ve said here is likely nothing new to you, but I think the language of set theory (and not the naïve kind!) is more suited to your needs than loose English and metaphysical gobbledygook.

Answer:
As I stated before you have a preconceived idea of what metaphysics is “gobbledygook” And if people buy your theories as clear and precise to explain reality, then more power to them. To me it manifests what I believe one of my teachers called “mental gymnastic” I am not competing in theories, but I am concerned with truth, reality, not imaginings I find myself repeating myself, in the event that my listener might miss a crucial point I’m trying to make, and if you read my posts you can readily see that it is hard to drive home some points.

 

[ynotzap]

But again, this is not the case in classical logic. “All flying pigs have polka-dotted wings” is true in classical logic. It is an example of a vacuous truth.

Then spare me your classical logic, because it’s and example of empty truth.which is not truth at all.

 

[ynotzap]

I do appreciate your imput even though I disagree with some of your statements, after all we all try our best if we are sincere, and no individual is infallible (but you know that some of us share a passive infallibility with the Catholic Church’s Magisterium as long as we are consistent with the Church’s teaching) This is our belief, and this is what we try to represent. I know you don’t believe the same, but that’s O.K. One can not give what he doesn’t have, only what he has.

 

[Oreoracle]

Then spare me your classical logic, because it’s and example of empty truth.which is not truth at all.

I know that vacuous truth seems counterintuitive, but the alternatives are even messier. The basic problem is figuring out what truth value we should assign to a statement of the form “if A, then B” if A happens to be false. Here are possible solutions that do not employ vacuous truth:

1. You could decide that such conditional statements are false. But then many of the basic facts of logic that we take for granted no longer apply. It hardly seems debatable that “if I’m 6 feet tall, then I’m 6 feet tall”. This is just an instance of the proposition “if A, then A”. But under this assignment of truth values, it isn’t always guaranteed that A implies itself, because A may be false. So the statement would be false since I’m not 6 feet tall.
2. You could refrain from assigning such statements truth values. This is actually far worse than (1), because other parts of logic will unravel. It is bad for the “algebra” of logic. For instance, in classical logic, “if A, then B” always has the same truth value as “not A or B”. Similarly, disjunctions (statements involving “or”) can be rewritten as conjunctions (statements involving “and”). So if conditional statements sometimes lack truth values, then this uncertainty spreads to every other logical connective. Give me any proposition, and I could rewrite it in a form whose truth value is undefined in this framework.
3. You could invent a new truth value that is reserved for just these situations. This isn’t as bad as (2), because logic won’t fall apart. It will just become more complicated. A lot more complicated. The proof technique of reductio ad absurdum wouldn’t work anymore, because showing that a statement is “not false” wouldn’t be the same as proving that it is true, because there is a third possibility.

Which solution would you prefer?

 

[ynotzap]

I know that vacuous truth seems counterintuitive, but the alternatives are even messier. The basic problem is figuring out what truth value we should assign to a statement of the form “if A, then B” if A happens to be false. Here are possible solutions that do not employ vacuous truth:

answer: the word "if"makes the truth relative to the situation, and if truth is relative, then there can be no certainty “if” means "supposing that, on condition that. The only truth value one could assign to a relative situation is one that it may or may not be true, I can’t see where any
truth value can be assigned without reference to objective reality, otherwise your method is imagined, unreal., pure speculation.

1. You could decide that such conditional statements are false. But then many of the basic facts of logic that we take for granted no longer apply. It hardly seems debatable that “if I’m 6 feet tall, then I’m 6 feet tall”. This is just an instance of the proposition “if A, then A”. But under this assignment of truth values, it isn’t always guaranteed that A implies itself, because A may be false. So the statement would be false since I’m not 6 feet tall.

Answer:
If I decided conditional statements are false, then I must know why they are, and be able to prove they are false, and this always brings me back to objective reality, the real world and use the universal principles for discerning truth. (A thing is, or is not) It’s not debatable, if your are six feet tall, your are six feet tall, again your truth is relative, and no certainty of the truth.by applying your method But you do make reference to the fact that you are not 6 ft. tall.using objective reality. Why would many of the basic facts of logic we take for granted not apply, is that relative too? If it they are facts, they always apply.

1. You could refrain from assigning such statements truth values. This is actually far worse than (1), because other parts of logic will unravel. It is bad for the “algebra” of logic. For instance, in classical logic, “if A, then B” always has the same truth value as “not A or B”. Similarly, disjunctions (statements involving “or”) can be rewritten as conjunctions (statements involving “and”). So if conditional statements sometimes lack truth values, then this uncertainty spreads to every other logical connective. Give me any proposition, and I could rewrite it in a form whose truth value is undefined in this framework

Answer
When we experience contact with the objective world, the objective world already has a truth value, so why do we have to assign truth value, don’t we acknowledge the existence of the objective world, some people don’t. IN classical logic “if A, then B always has the same truth value as “not A or B” If that’s the case then why can’t :” existence(a) =being(b) and non-existence=(non-A and non-being=(not B)? You are not babbling are you ( as you referred to meta-physics) You used a meta-physical principle (naughty boy) To admit one condition is to deny the other, to admit the other is to deny the one, they can’t have both at the same time ( the principle of contradiction- a metaphysical truth, which is true, firm, and always existing, a good anchor for discerning the truth, not a "changeable one, or relative.

1. You could invent a new truth value that is reserved for just these situations. This isn’t as bad as (2), because logic won’t fall apart. It will just become more complicated. A lot more complicated. The proof technique of reductio ad absurdum wouldn’t work anymore, because showing that a statement is “not false” wouldn’t be the same as proving that it is true, because there is a third possibility.

Answer:
I don’t like to make reference to Ochams razor, but this dialogue reminds me that it is like it, and that is …the answer with fewer assumptions should be selected, I don’t agree that what I I stated are assumptions, but to me it is much simpler, I find your methods like math, quantitative, and not qualitative, the difference between mathematical abstraction, and meta-physical abstractions, math being abstraction of the second degree, and metaphyical abstractions of the third degree

Which solution would you prefer?

My own.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think we’re talking past each other here, so let’s see if we agree on more fundamental things first.

You say that, to determine the truth value of “if A, then B” we must know the context of the situation. Logic accounts for this by asserting that the truth value depends on the truth values of A and B. To be more precise, the conditional relation (“if _, then _”) is said to be truth-functional, meaning that we can determine its truth value by knowing the truth value of its atoms, A and B.

Logics sometimes use operators that are not truth-functional. For example, you’ve probably heard of modal logic, which deals with necessity and possibility. Neither operator is truth-functional. Consider the possibility operator: If A is true, then certainly it is true that A is possible. However, if A is false, that does not demonstrate that A is impossible. So knowing the truth value of A doesn’t determine the truth value of “possibly A”, thus “possibly _” is not a function of truth values.

That being said, you really can’t get far in logic without using functions. Modal logic expands on classical propositional logic, and so it is dependent on the truth-functionality of the more basic operators, the conditional relation being one of them. And if you agree that the conditional relation is truth-functional, then it must have a truth table. The truth table assigns truth values to “if A, then B” provided that we are given the truth values of A and B. There are four possible combinations of truth values for A and B since they have two possibilities each. To use this relation in logic, you have to complete the truth table, assigning truth values based on the four different cases.

So my challenge to you is to complete the truth table for the conditional relation. That is, tell me whether “if A, then B” is true or false if A and B are both true, if both are false, if the former is true but the latter is false, and finally if the former is false but the latter is true. Unless of course you disagree that the conditional relation is truth-functional, in which case we will probably have to agree to disagree.

 

[ynotzap]

I acknowledge your understanding of logic, but I can’t agree with some of the ideas that are employed from your understanding, for example using the idea of “an empty set?” ; when we introduce nothingness into a conversation we have a name for it’'s container, this is better than giving nothingness itself a name? If that’s the case, the English dictionary has it all wrong, because they give nothingness a name and a meaning without going through a complex group of ideas to get to the same thing. The less complexity the better. I think I explained myself fairly well, but there is always the possibility that it could be done better.

I never heard your explanation of “nothingness”, and I know nothingness doesn’t have a container either in reality, or as an idea To me the “empty set’ muddies the water” because you are using an abstraction or set of ideas to explain an abstraction that is impossible to abstract, for how can you abstract the idea of nothingness from non-reality? I find the only way you can justify it is to use it as a negative, the absence of something, just as I have explained from my previous posts. Meta-physics deals with the ultimates, goes right to the core of things. Using the principle of contradiction shows that confirming one is to deny the other, vs. So I guess we have to agree to disagree. Remember I didn’t state that you were wrong in your knowledge of logic, I just say that I can’t agree for the reason I gave. Again I appreciate your imput, and thanks.

 

[ynotzap]

A s man is to the Grinch The object in the intellect of God, is real, and it exists APART from God, but depends on Him to continue existing, and is not part of God

NeoPlatonic:
the object of man’s creative imagination is part of man (existing as an idea,) but is has no objective reality, and does NOT EXIST apart from man

The similarities are God is Creator of man , man is the creator of the Grinch, one is real, the other unreal, Man and the Grinch aMan is similar to God, but completely different in nature. One is subsistent, the other is completely dependent, one is infinite, the other finite, and limited. Correction an idea has objective reality when is represents reality outside of the mind of man. Otherwise it has only subjective reality, depending on the imagination, not real, fiction

Neo-Platonic:
I was confused in my comparison when I stated “as man is to the Grinch” I change it to "the object in the intellect of God, is to man as man is to woman, that is they are all real and existing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To conclude then, all the universe has been created by God out of nothing, we certainly didn’t create ourselves and the universe certainly didn’t create itself. See the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques. 44-49 and the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book ll, Creation. Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP.html#TOC02

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

To conclude then, all the universe has been created by God out of nothing, we certainly didn’t create ourselves and the universe certainly didn’t create itself. See the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques. 44-49 and the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book ll, Creation. Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP.html#TOC02

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm

Linus2nd

What does it mean to create something out of nothing. Does that not contradict metaphysical principle that you cannot get more from less?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What does it mean to create something out of nothing. Does that not contradict metaphysical principle that you cannot get more from less?

But God is more, he is the All, the Perfect. So he is certainly more perfect than us and he is the absolute, whereas nothing is just nothing at all, non-being.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

What does it mean to create something out of nothing. Does that not contradict metaphysical principle that you cannot get more from less?

You can’t get something more from something less in limited, created things. But you can get something more from Unlimited Uncreated God who by His Omnipotence does create out of nothing, non-being, non-existence because being, existence comes from God who is Pure Being, and Existence. There is no contradiction of metaphysical principle.

 

[ChainBreaker]

You can’t get something more from something less in limited, created things. But you can get something more from Unlimited Uncreated God who by His Omnipotence does create out of nothing, non-being, non-existence because being, existence comes from God who is Pure Being, and Existence. There is no contradiction of metaphysical principle.

What changes when we add the term omnipotence? Why does omnipotence mean that one can create out of nothing?

You are saying existence comes from God. What does that mean in terms of creation? Also in the case where there is absolutely nothing but God, what is it exactly that God is giving existence to? Because if he is not in some sense creating out of him self then would that not contradict the principle that you cannot get more from less; you cannot get an act of reality from that which is **not an act or reality?
**

In other words, where does he get more existence from?

 

[ynotzap]

What changes when we add the term omnipotence? Why does omnipotence mean that one can create out of nothing?

You are saying existence comes from God. What does that mean in terms of creation? Also in the case where there is absolutely nothing but God, what is it exactly that God is giving existence to? Because if he is not in some sense creating out of him self then would that not contradict the principle that you cannot get more from less; you cannot get an act of reality from that which is **not an act or reality?
**

In other words, where does he get more existence from?/QUO

God does not create anything from anything, nothing exists outside of Him, He encompasses all that exists, that’s why He is called God The Almighty, the Creator of the Universe. God does not get existence from anyone, or thing, He is Existence, I know this is a hard concept to accept, and it takes the science of Ontology found in Philosophy to understand it as much as we can understand it. God is His own source, but He has the power to create when there is nothing to create from, nothing to create from means nothing else exists but God. We are not in anyway part of God, because if we were we would be as He is, always existing, which is contrary to our experience, we all had a beginning. God is Simple, Pure Spirit, and Has no parts, parts belong to created things, God is uncreated, subsistent.

Humans can create using their imaginations by applying ideas to material objects and from these objects make something new, although these ideas have their origin in the real world, something that already exists, if it didn’t exist, they couldn’t invent anything. God does not need anything to create from, He will’s it into existence, and it would cease to exist if He didn’t continue to keep it in existence. So without God we are nothing.

I have explained some of this already in my posts. God creates, needing absolutely nothing by His almighty power, ability to do anything, all things are possible to God. God can not contradict Himself, He is Truth. To contradict Himself would mean self- annihilation and this is impossible. Omnipotence means “all powerful, capable of doing anything, nothing is impossible” We are not omnipotent, as a matter of fact we are completely dependent on God for everything, even for what we can do.

Linusthe 2nd gave you some excellent references to explain much of this, but it it will take some serious study to understand it, it’s deep, as some would say.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What changes when we add the term omnipotence? Why does omnipotence mean that one can create out of nothing?

You are saying existence comes from God. What does that mean in terms of creation? Also in the case where there is absolutely nothing but God, what is it exactly that God is giving existence to? Because if he is not in some sense creating out of him self then would that not contradict the principle that you cannot get more from less; you cannot get an act of reality from that which is **not an act or reality?
**

In other words, where does he get more existence from?

Why not read the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques 44-49 and the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book ll, Creation, and De Potentia…

dhspriory.org/thomas/

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

Why not read the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques 44-49 and the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book ll, Creation, and De Potentia…

dhspriory.org/thomas/

Linus2nd

It doesn’t explain the issues i am raising. It merely speaks of God’s infinite power assuming that there is a logical correlation between that concept and creation out of nothing. I see no explanation in that fact other than the fact that God would have to be all powerful to be considered a first-cause/creator. This is merely an inductive statement. It has no explanatory value in terms of the question that i asked.

 

[ChainBreaker]

ChainBreaker;12614453:

What changes when we add the term omnipotence? Why does omnipotence mean that one can create out of nothing?

You are saying existence comes from God. What does that mean in terms of creation? Also in the case where there is absolutely nothing but God, what is it exactly that God is giving existence to? Because if he is not in some sense creating out of him self then would that not contradict the principle that you cannot get more from less; you cannot get an act of reality from that which is **not an act or reality?
**

In other words, where does he get more existence from?[/QUO

God does not create anything from anything, nothing exists outside of Him, He encompasses all that exists, that’s why He is called God The Almighty, the Creator of the Universe. God does not get existence from anyone, or thing, He is Existence, I know this is a hard concept to accept, and it takes the science of Ontology found in Philosophy to understand it as much as we can understand it. God is His own source, but He has the power to create when there is nothing to create from, nothing to create from means nothing else exists but God. We are not in anyway part of God, because if we were we would be as He is, always existing, which is contrary to our experience, we all had a beginning. God is Simple, Pure Spirit, and Has no parts, parts belong to created things, God is uncreated, subsistent.

Humans can create using their imaginations by applying ideas to material objects and from these objects make something new, although these ideas have their origin in the real world, something that already exists, if it didn’t exist, they couldn’t invent anything. God does not need anything to create from, He will’s it into existence, and it would cease to exist if He didn’t continue to keep it in existence. So without God we are nothing.

I have explained some of this already in my posts. God creates, needing absolutely nothing by His almighty power, ability to do anything, all things are possible to God. God can not contradict Himself, He is Truth. To contradict Himself would mean self- annihilation and this is impossible. Omnipotence means “all powerful, capable of doing anything, nothing is impossible” We are not omnipotent, as a matter of fact we are completely dependent on God for everything, even for what we can do.

Linusthe 2nd gave you some excellent references to explain much of this, but it it will take some serious study to understand it, it’s deep, as some would say.

You are basically saying here that God can create out of nothing because he is all powerful but how does that make logical sense of the fact that God is creating more in the absence of something, thereby contradicting the principle that you cannot get more from that which is essentially less. You cannot get something from nothing because that would contradict the fact that it was absolutely nothing in the first place.
[/quote]