The Metaphysics Of Existence: The Reality Of Being & Nothing

[MindOverMatter2]

“Nothing exists” just means “there is no such thing as anything.” It’s merely used to indicate universal absence. It’s no different than saying, “No socks exist” except it applies to every object. There’s nothing contradictory about it unless you interpret it as an objectification of nothingness, which would be an inaccurate interpretation. We’re negating all things, not positing a “no-thing.”

When we describe something as being objectively real, we mean three things.
First; what we perceive with the senses is not imaginary; it has objectivity. It has an act which is distinct from what we imagine in our minds; and thus it exists outside of our minds independently (realism). This means that there is an independent reality that exists apart from our imagination. More importantly, we mean that it is not “nothing”, for that which is “nothing” is not objectively present in reality, although we might be able to imagine it.

Secondly; that which exists objectively participates in what we describe as “objectively true”. I participate in objective truth because I have personal knowledge of that truth. If I was nothing, this would mean that it would be impossible for me to have knowledge of my objective existence, because nothing is an absence of a contingent truth and thus also the objective reality of that truth. Absolutely nothing is the rejection of all necessary and possible truths, since there is no truth in absolutely nothing; thus nothing cannot be an absolute truth. It is not possible for the reality of my mind to be a figment of my imagination because my imagination necessary implies the reality of something.

Thirdly, a thing that exists objectively necessarily has some kind of nature. We see that things have a weight, size and shape and an act which is peculiar to its own individual nature. This objective fact allows us to categorize things and make distinctions. If a thing didn’t have a nature of some kind, it would be meaningless to describe it as having an objective existence; since it is nothing, and there is no objectivity, truth, or reality in nothing.

All three can be rolled up in to what we call “being”.

On the subject of nothing; Let me repeat again that Absolutely Nothing is the rejection of all necessary and possible truths, since there is no truth in absolutely nothing; thus nothing cannot be an absolute truth. Nothing, when speaking about the objectively real, is a term that can be used to describe the absence of a contingent nature. It is nothing because it is no longer real. It is contingent because of the mere fact that a “nature” which ceases to be, or does not yet exist, or changes in to something else, cannot be necessarily real by definition of “real”. The word real, when used absolutely, necessarily opposes non-reality. When we use the term nothing, we cannot possibly mean that nothing is an objective reality or a positive description of something. The word, by definition, is not used to express something that objectively exists or is possible. It is used only as a “privation” of something that is already there. You could not go to a place that is nothing. You agree with this in the following quote…

“There’s nothing contradictory about it unless you interpret it as an objectification of nothingness, which would be an inaccurate interpretation”.

To Be Continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You understood this fact perfectly. Yet, you fail to understand that your argument is dependent on using the word nothing in a positive manner which necessarily implies objectivity. What you are failing to realize is the fact that to apply nothing to all things is necessarily to give nothing a universal positive act, since you are giving the word “nothing” objectivity by presenting it as a possible truth about what is real. You are confusing the facts we know about reality with the word nothing. To say that absolutely nothing exists as a truth, is necessarily saying that “Absolutely Nothing” can objectively exist. Yet, objectivity, truth, and reality, are completely opposite to nothing. In other words it is meaningless to say something positive or true about nothing as if it was an existing individual, since it has no real relationship with truth accept as to describe a privation of being. Outside of that metaphysical arrangement, the word has no purpose or meaning in so far as it describes the truth of things. That is to say; we are not actually taking about nothing as having an effect on reality. It is a privation only, and by definition of its dependence on reality, which it needs in order to be a privation, its existence is limited to being purely a description about contingent reality, and is not a possible metaphysical reality itself. Thus it is irrational to speak of possibility existing in nothing, because possibility is a function of reality. There is nothing meaningful or real in nothing, and so it cannot be a reality.

In other words; to speak of an absolute privation is to say that nothing could have been the state of things. But what does that mean when nothing is not a state or a thing or an effect? These words describe functions of objective reality. Privation has no meaning out side of its relationship to those words. What does nothing as a privation mean once it becomes an absolute description of reality? Again its not a reality. The word becomes meaningless, because in the first place we invented the term to describe the contingency of things, as in, the passing out of existence of natures; rather then the positive existence of nothing. And you agree with me that nothing is not a metaphysical being. When one remains faithful to its proper definition, nothing can have no positive description or effect, and neither can we employ it as a possible truth, because to speak about a possible truth is to talk about reality and its effect.

In summary, when we talk about privation, we are describing an absence from reality, not the absence of reality. Therefore In order for your argument to work you would have to meaningfully demonstrate how nothing can exist apart from its function as a privation of being and its dependence on the actuality of being which it requires in order to remain meaningful. I don’t think you can, simply because its impossible. There is a difference between metaphysical truths and purely abstract concepts. We can conceptualize nothing, but it cannot exist with the function of an object. We can certainly imagine nothing by analogy, picturing complete darkness with no objects; but there is still an object which is the “truth” of that reality—there is still a nature and an act. We think we are imagining nothing but we are in fact employing “something” as a representation. And in so far as “truth” is necessarily an expression of being and nature, it follows that being and nothing cannot be synonymous. If you then say that you are merely using the world or being as a descriptive tool only, you still haven’t made any meaningful sense in regards to describing nothing as an “objective truth” and reality. This is because the word world by definition is necessarily talking about “something”, and you cannot meaningful talk about nothing as if it were something in-order to justify it as a possible truth or a logical argument—since there is no truth in nothing. Therefore you are committing the fallacy of objectifying nothing. This is to give nothing a significance or meaning that can only be applied to reality.

Therefore there is necessarily an absolute timeless reality, or an absolute timeless truth that does not pass in an out of existence; because it is existence by nature.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

when oreo said…

We’re negating all things, not positing a “no-thing.”

it strikes me that if you negate all things you are necessarily left with no-things.

‘nothing exists’ and an ‘existent nothing’ are equal statements they, are logical contradictions. impossibilities.

the whole question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is based on the idea that this logical contradiction is possible. “nothing” isnt a choice.

this comes, mostly i think, from a conflation of “nothing” with “the empty set” like a ‘void’ or ‘empty space’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set#Philosophical_issues

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag – an empty bag undoubtedly still exists.

so “nothing” is literally a logical contradiction and impossibility, which fits very nicely with the existence of G-d as the necessary being.

it is a good reason why it is not possible for G-d not to exist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

when oreo said…

it strikes me that if you negate all things you are necessarily left with no-things.

‘nothing exists’ and an ‘existent nothing’ are equal statements they, are logical contradictions. impossibilities.

the whole question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is based on the idea that this logical contradiction is possible. “nothing” isnt a choice.

this comes, mostly i think, from a conflation of “nothing” with “the empty set” like a ‘void’ or ‘empty space’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set#Philosophical_issues

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag – an empty bag undoubtedly still exists.

so “nothing” is literally a logical contradiction and impossibility, which fits very nicely with the existence of G-d as the necessary being.

it is a good reason why it is not possible for G-d not to exist.

Yes i agree. I have accidentally used the word privation instead “negation”, but they have similar meanings:blush:. I have tried to give a metaphysical argument to prove that nothing comes from nothing. I am not sure how i have done, but it is hard to prove something that i think is self evident.

 

[Oreoracle]

When we describe something as being objectively real, we mean three things.
First; what we perceive with the senses is not imaginary; it has objectivity. It has an act which is distinct from what we imagine in our minds; and thus it exists outside of our minds independently (realism). This means that there is an independent reality that exists apart from our imagination. More importantly, we mean that it is not “nothing”, for that which is “nothing” is not objectively present in reality, although we might be able to imagine it.

No objections here…

I participate in objective truth because I have personal knowledge of that truth.

 

[Syntax]

Oh my!..another nonsensical linguistic mess about “being and nothingness.” The very title of this post alone is a contradiction. How absurd can these discussions get?

Warpspeedpetey, don’t you dare ask me to get involved in this one too.



Mindovermatter2, Oreo and warpspeedpetey have you beat right from the get-go.

 

[Oreoracle]

You understood this fact perfectly. Yet, you fail to understand that your argument is dependent on using the word nothing in a positive manner which necessarily implies objectivity.

Well yes, a statement will either come off as being positive or negative, but that doesn’t mean that the statement means something positive or negative. We can invoke math to clarify this. For example, you would agree to call existence a positive thing, would you not? Intuitively, this makes us think of “nonexistence” as a negative thing. However, negative things don’t exist, so negation is only a manner of speaking in our statements–negations don’t actually exist, they just tell us that something is not in existence. So when we say that no things exist, we’re actually saying that there is nothing positive. But since we can’t have anything negative in existence either, what’s left, you might ask? Well, what’s the one number that isn’t positive or negative in math? Correct, it’s 0. Think of “no things exist” as a proposition that means 0 is the case.

As you can see, I am actually proposing neutrality, not negativity.

What you are failing to realize is the fact that to apply nothing to all things is necessarily to give nothing a universal positive act, since you are giving the word “nothing” objectivity by presenting it as a possible truth about what is real. You are confusing the facts we know about reality with the word nothing. To say that absolutely nothing exists as a truth, is necessarily saying that “Absolutely Nothing” can objectively exist. Yet, objectivity, truth, and reality, are completely opposite to nothing.

 

[Syntax]

I have tried to give a metaphysical argument to prove that nothing comes from nothing.

This is impossible to accomplish from the start. “That nothing comes from nothing” is completely meaningless and hence, not self-evident. It would be much better if you told us either that

“Everything has a sufficent reason for its existence”

or

“Every thing comes from some other thing.”

or

“Every event has a cause”

or

“Everything that exists, exists”–is trivially true

or

“It’s not the case that some or every existent thing does not exist”–is also trivially true.

Those would be better formulations.

 

[Oreoracle]

Oh my!..another nonsensical linguistic mess about “being and nothingness.” The very title of this post alone is a contradiction. How absurd can these discussions get?

Warpspeedpetey, don’t you dare ask me to get involved in this one too.



Mindovermatter2, Oreo and warpspeedpetey have you beat right from the get-go.

For once, I must say that I agree with you. No matter who “wins” this debate, neither party will walk out with a better understanding of reality. It just boils down to wordplay.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey, don’t you dare ask me to get involved in this one too.

nope, no need, it pretty much got settled in the last thread. im sticking with my story. thanks though.

 

[Syntax]

nope, no need, it pretty much got settled in the last thread. im sticking with my story. thanks though.

No worries. I just started cracking up when I saw the title and knew you would be here.

 

[Syntax]

For once, I must say that I agree with you. No matter who “wins” this debate, neither party will walk out with a better understanding of reality. It just boils down to wordplay.

Exactly.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No worries. I just started cracking up when I saw the title and knew you would be here.

it just makes a good answer to the “if everything needs a cause, why doesnt G-d?” line. i just cat help it!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No objections here…
I must disagree here. You can know something because it is true, but that does not imply that your knowledge of it is what causes its truth. That is, your knowledge of your existence is not what causes your existence.

I agree, but that is not what i meant. I did not mean to use knowledge in a causative sense, but rather in a purely logical sense. I apologize. What I do mean however, is that the knowledge of my existence equals the fact that i existence. If i did not exist i would not have any knowledge of that truth. It would be a contradiction if i did.

I disagree: In a world with absolutely nothing, the proposition that no things exist would be true.

Conceptually, but not objectively, since there is no objective truth in nothing.

If I am not allowed to hold the negation of a class to be true (as you are implying), then how are we to deal with propositions like “No unicorns exist?” If I can’t negate the class of things, how can I negate the class of unicorns?

To say that no unicorns exist, is possible because the meaning of that statements occurs in relation to objective reality. No unicorns exist in “reality” or in truth. To speak of truth is to talk about something in relation to objective reality; it is not nothing. In order for something to be true, it has to be true of “something”. If there is absolutely nothing; there is no objective truth. Hence the contradiction. If nothing existed, it would be objectively true that nothing existed, which is logically impossible.

Thus, to say that some things can fail to exist is by no means justification to say

I did not assert that no things existed.

I am not saying that you did. I am merely working out the metaphysical consequences what you are saying. For example “If nothing existed such and such would be the case.” ect.

I only asserted that it is logically possible for no physical objects to exist.

I agree that there can be an absence of physical reality, without there being an absense of truth. However this is not the same as saying that absolutely nothing is a possible reality; since there is no such thing as possibilities in absolutely nothing. Possibility is necessarily an expression of reality. Thus we have to say that there is a necessary being that transcends all time.

This was my position in the thread you pulled that quote from.

If that is so then i apologize.

If you’ll recall, I was talking about physical things only, not all items that might constitute truths. I concede that even without the physical world, tautologies and other conceptual truths would exist. This seems to be an unintentional straw man on your part. Either that, or you’re attacking a position that isn’t pertinent to this discussion.

Perhaps it is the case that i have misunderstood you. However i maintain that my position on this particular thread cannot refuted - like it or not.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Oh my!..another nonsensical linguistic mess about “being and nothingness.” The very title of this post alone is a contradiction. How absurd can these discussions get?

I did not pose it as an argument. Rather the thread is about existence & the word nothing. But of course, you’re far too intelligent not to know that; surely?

Warpspeedpetey, don’t you dare ask me to get involved in this one too.

Then why did you get involved? That is a bit irrational don’t you think?

Mindovermatter2, Oreo and warpspeedpetey have you beat right from the get-go.

Prove it. Or admit that you have nothing important to say.

The idea that the Universe popped out of nothing, went through billions of years of change and evolution, just so that you could arrogantly laugh at me without a efficient cause, is absolutely ridiculous!! That’s what the real joke is.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No matter who “wins” this debate, neither party will walk out with a better understanding of reality. It just boils down to wordplay.

I assure that is does not boil down to word play; so long as you stick to the real meaning of the word nothing. What you will learn is that there is a necessary being that transcends time.

 

[Oreoracle]

I agree, but that is not what i meant. I did not mean to use knowledge in a causative sense, but rather in a purely logical sense. I apologize. What I do mean however, is that the knowledge of my existence equals the fact that i existence. If i did not exist i would not have any knowledge of that truth. It would be a contradiction if i did.

I agree that what you said is true if we are dealing with implication rather than causation.

Conceptually, but not objectively, since there is no objective truth in nothing.

Since the proposition describes the absence of objects, I daresay that it is an objective truth. Also, you seem to be distorting what “objective” means. Something is objective if it is the case without subjectivity. The proposition “no physical things exist” would be objectively true in the absence of all physical things because it is not contingent upon subjectivity. In fact, I really don’t know what you’re saying above, because all truths are objective–there’s no such thing as a “subjective truth.” If by “objective truth” you’re instead referring to a truth pertaining to the physical world, we call those “facts.”

To say that no unicorns exist, is possible because the meaning of that statements occurs in relation to objective reality.
But we can use your arguments against this notion. How can an absence occur in reality? It’s equivalent to making an entity out of a non-entity, which is meaningless and self-contradictory.

Do you see how your position makes it impossible to use any negations whatsoever?

No unicorns exist in “reality” or in truth.

I prefer to say that no objects conform to the definition of “unicorn.” Perhaps this is why it is easier for me to grapple with my position. Based on how you define things, the truth of the absence of unicorns is dependent on other truths, but there is no reason for this. When we say that no unicorns exist, we mean that there are no existent objects satisfying the definition of “unicorn.” It’s as simple as that, really. Its truth need not be dependent upon the existence of other things.

To speak of truth is to talk about something in relation to objective reality; it is not nothing. In order for something to be true, it has to be true of “something”.

I don’t need to reference a container to refer to the contents of the container. The container is an abstraction anyway (in this case), so it doesn’t really matter.

If nothing existed, it would be objectively true that nothing existed, which is logically impossible.

I fail to see the contradiction.

I agree that there can be an absence of physical reality, without there being an absense of truth.

That was all I was arguing for, actually. Ironically, now that you’ve conceded this point, I can dismiss your claim about the necessary timeless being. You are surely referring to God, who is said to transcend all realms of existence. This means that God manifests himself in each realm, and so he would exist (at least partially) in the physical world. However, you’ve just admitted that there is a possible world in which no physical things exist, which means it’s possible for God not to exist. This makes your god contingent. Thanks for playing.

Perhaps it is the case that i have misunderstood you. However i maintain that my position on this particular thread cannot refuted - like it or not.

I love how you apologize *and then *roll your eyes. It’s similar to a backhanded compliment.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Since the proposition describes the absence of objects, I daresay that it is an objective truth.

There is no objective truth in absolutely nothing. There is nothing in absolutely nothing.

Also, you seem to be distorting what “objective” means.
Something is objective if it is the case without subjectivity.

This i what i mean.

The proposition “no physical things exist” would be objectively true in the absence of all physical things because it is not contingent upon subjectivity. In fact, I really don’t know what you’re saying above, because all truths are objective–there’s no such thing as a “subjective truth.” If by “objective truth” you’re instead referring to a truth pertaining to the physical world, we call those “facts.”

Objective truth describes anything that exists in objective reality. Objective truth describes anything that is objectively real as opposed to non-real. It is possible to say that this or that thing no longer exists, it is nothing; but this is true only in comparison to other Beings. This is to say that a thing that once existed now lacks something that other things have. If there was absolutely nothing there would be no such thing as possibility, or reality, in order that we can speak of nothing as a negation; since its use as a negation would become meaningless in absence of all reality. What does nothing mean with out reality? Its function is meaningful only in terms of describing the state of real things. It means nothing outside of its function as a negation. Therefore nothing cannot be used as a descriptive word outside of the fact that there is a reality. It cannot be used to describe a possible objective absolute, because you cannot objectify nothing.

But we can use your arguments against this notion. How can an absence occur in reality? It’s equivalent to making an entity out of a non-entity, which is meaningless and self-contradictory. : Do you see how your position makes it impossible to use any negations whatsoever?

I agree that you cannot negate that which is reality by nature. That is logically impossible. But the negation of a contingent being is not the absence of reality in so far as reality is a nature in itself. The absence of a contingent “nature” is not really the absence of reality. No contingent being is intrinsically real; otherwise it would always exist. It is real only by participation in that which is “reality”.

I prefer to say that no objects conform to the definition of “unicorn.” Perhaps this is why it is easier for me to grapple with my position. Based on how you define things, the truth of the absence of unicorns is dependent on other truths, but there is no reason for this. When we say that no unicorns exist, we mean that there are no existent objects satisfying the definition of “unicorn.” It’s as simple as that, really. Its truth need not be dependent upon the existence of other things.

There is no truth in nothing. If there was nothing, there would be a truth. Therefore it would not be nothing; and this is why it is a contradiction. Contingent truths are reliant on eternal truth in order to be true. They cannot come out of nothing, for there is nothing in nothing.

I fail to see the contradiction.

Its easy. There is no truth in nothing. Thus nothing cannot be an absolute truth.

This means that God manifests himself in each realm, and so he would exist (at least partially) in the physical world.

God is reality, and so any contingent being participating in Gods reality is necessarily permeated by God.

However, you’ve just admitted that there is a possible world in which no physical things exist, which means it’s possible for God not to exist. This makes your god contingent. Thanks for playing.

Firstly, God is not made of parts, and so the absence of a part is not the absence of God. Secondly, as i said before, physical beings are not reality by nature, but rather they are generated in the presence of necessary reality and their particular natures are sustained in existence by that which is necessary reality. A contingent nature does not have a reality of its own. Thus there negation, is rather the absence of a contingent nature, or essence, from reality; and is not the absence of that which is real by nature, esse.

 

[Syntax]

The idea that the Universe popped out of nothing, went through billions of years of change and evolution, just so that you could arrogantly laugh at me without a efficient cause, is absolutely ridiculous!! That’s what the real joke is

huh?? You’re already lost. The universe popped into existence, yes. But you are trying to make linguistic sense of the moment before existence. Good luck, buddy.

If the word “nothing” **means ** something more than negation like you imply it does, then I challenge you to define the word without using “not.” If you’re trying to define a word like this, it shouldn’t be taking you several posts to do, because if it did, which it clearly does, you would be talking about everything that already exists, not “nothing.”

So you’re whole enterprise is silly right from the start

 

[Syntax]

I assure that is does not boil down to word play; so long as you stick to the real meaning of the word nothing. What you will learn is that there is a necessary being that transcends time.

What does “nothing” mean other than “its not the case that”???