Why Not Nothing?_Answered
If A?B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A.
Is this chain of reasoning valid?
The chain of reasoning progresses to the conclusion that, Existence is a necessary condition for a question to be asked.
The structure of the argument is modus ponens. If its premise is true, then its conclusion must be true.
Premise 1: A?B. If I ask a question, then someone exists. This premise is sound because the act of asking a question (A) requires a sentient (a questioner) who performs it, thus guaranteeing existence of a sentient (B).
Premise 2: A is true; The sentient is asking a question. This premise is self-evidently true in the context of the sentient asking this question.
Intermediate Conclusion (via modus ponens): Since A is true, then B is true; A sentient exists. This conclusion follows from premises: A and B.
Premise 3: Given that a sentient exists, B implies C: There is not nothing. If a sentient exists, then the comprehension of nothing is not unrestricted; at least one sentient exists.
Conclusion: A?B, and B?C, therefore C is true: There is not nothing because A.
Yes, the chain of reasoning is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
The premises are true: I am asking a question; therefore I exist, which implies that nothingness is not unrestricted.
This reasoning, at bottom, dovetails with René Descartes Cogito ergo sum. Herein I think therefore I am. gets applied to the act of questioning. Asking a question requires a sentient in the role of an existing questioner.
Why not nothing? = Why being? Asking either question assumes being, so being is inscrutable by questioning.
If being is necessary to knowing via questioning, then being is the limit of knowing by questioning and thus it makes questioning impotent WRT either being or knowing because knowing, a form of being, is also inscrutable.
Why not nothing? elicits the reasoning that reveals that math, logic, and science are incomplete and also that the universe is open (it didnt start from nothing) and cannot be closed.
A universe that has an opening, likely has a closing because its opening strongly implies its closing in circularity with its opening, whereas a universe that has no opening also has no closing in the sense that its comprehension restriction is irrational in the sense that theres no circularity linking closing and opening. An irrational universe that describes an infinite series towards it beginning, will likely also describe an infinite series towards its ending. Such an irrational universe is incomplete; irrationality and incompletion describe our universe.
The uncoupling of beginning and ending towards irrationality (pi=the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter; the n-gon approaches but never arrives at the circle.) moves the narrative of the universe away from circularity. This is good news because there will be no universal equilibrium.
Aborning cultures immature believe they see God; mature cultures know they dont see God clearly, if at all. As science hordes up knowledge, it becomes clear that the rationality of knowledge and the irrationality of God will maintain the dark lens that affords looking through a looking glass darkly.
Theism is aligned with an open universe. God will not be completely understood.
Is this chain of reasoning valid?
The chain of reasoning progresses to the conclusion that, Existence is a necessary condition for a question to be asked.
The structure of the argument is modus ponens. If its premise is true, then its conclusion must be true.
Premise 1: A?B. If I ask a question, then someone exists. This premise is sound because the act of asking a question (A) requires a sentient (a questioner) who performs it, thus guaranteeing existence of a sentient (B).
Premise 2: A is true; The sentient is asking a question. This premise is self-evidently true in the context of the sentient asking this question.
Intermediate Conclusion (via modus ponens): Since A is true, then B is true; A sentient exists. This conclusion follows from premises: A and B.
Premise 3: Given that a sentient exists, B implies C: There is not nothing. If a sentient exists, then the comprehension of nothing is not unrestricted; at least one sentient exists.
Conclusion: A?B, and B?C, therefore C is true: There is not nothing because A.
Yes, the chain of reasoning is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
The premises are true: I am asking a question; therefore I exist, which implies that nothingness is not unrestricted.
This reasoning, at bottom, dovetails with René Descartes Cogito ergo sum. Herein I think therefore I am. gets applied to the act of questioning. Asking a question requires a sentient in the role of an existing questioner.
- Sentience is a dilemma
- Irreducible complexity of consciousness To know equals inscrutable being
- To be equals inaccessible knowing
Why not nothing? = Why being? Asking either question assumes being, so being is inscrutable by questioning.
If being is necessary to knowing via questioning, then being is the limit of knowing by questioning and thus it makes questioning impotent WRT either being or knowing because knowing, a form of being, is also inscrutable.
Why not nothing? elicits the reasoning that reveals that math, logic, and science are incomplete and also that the universe is open (it didnt start from nothing) and cannot be closed.
A universe that has an opening, likely has a closing because its opening strongly implies its closing in circularity with its opening, whereas a universe that has no opening also has no closing in the sense that its comprehension restriction is irrational in the sense that theres no circularity linking closing and opening. An irrational universe that describes an infinite series towards it beginning, will likely also describe an infinite series towards its ending. Such an irrational universe is incomplete; irrationality and incompletion describe our universe.
The uncoupling of beginning and ending towards irrationality (pi=the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter; the n-gon approaches but never arrives at the circle.) moves the narrative of the universe away from circularity. This is good news because there will be no universal equilibrium.
Aborning cultures immature believe they see God; mature cultures know they dont see God clearly, if at all. As science hordes up knowledge, it becomes clear that the rationality of knowledge and the irrationality of God will maintain the dark lens that affords looking through a looking glass darkly.
Theism is aligned with an open universe. God will not be completely understood.
Comments (82)
Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking.
X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either.
Maybe because "nothing" stops something from coming-to-be, etc.
This supposed 'Nothing' cannot be. This mistaken 'it' has no it and so it cannot even be meant; therefore existence must be, for it has no alternative, and indeed there is something; so no option.
Quoting ucarr
'God' has not been established, so, preachers everywhere, to speak of 'God' of being true is misleading and not intellectually honest.
Back at the beginning, you presumed that there was someone asking a question. So it's no surprise that you can conclude that someone exists.
Asking a question presumes the questioner. Sure.
That's not demonstrating that something exists, so much as presuming it.
Which one must do, anyway. That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact.
:up:
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it? Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises. Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?
Quoting Ciceronianus
You can help me by elaborating some of the details of your mathematical and logical disappointments experienced while reading my OP. As you may have seen with Tom Storm, he supplies helpful details that clarify his dislikes. These details help me see more clearly where I can work towards improvement.
Looking at this from an early Wittgenstein perspective, a fact is just what is the case. And what is the case is some combination of objects. These objects are simple, can only be name, and spoken of but not asserted. A proposition presents the existence or non existence of facts. The totality of true propositions is what science strives for. Thus, the world is the totality of facts, not of things. So what are these things/objects? They are metaphysical presuppositions assumed in order to show how we come to understand the world around us.
I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions..
Incoherences and falsities.
It only requires showing that theistic truth-claims lack sufficient truth-makers.
No. Why do you ask?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Banno
Yes, I presumed someone was asking the question, "Why is there not nothing?" This question, asked a long time ago, is the impetus for my OP. I'm not alone in doing that around here. It's one of the important reasons we come around here, isn't it?
Quoting Banno
Presuming the advanced sentience required by inquiry is no trivial matter. Do you demur?
Quoting Banno
What you say is true, however, the focus of my argument rests upon the implication that questioning something precludes the nothing that wants to be investigated. The upshot of this, also not trivial, says that existence is insuperable to the questioner. This is what I think gives the question of general existence special status. The questioner cannot examine general existence without presuming his own existence unexamined as he cannot get outside of himself and within himself his self-examination is ultimately tautological.
Quoting Banno
The brute fact of existence lies at the heart of my argument: existence, being insuperable, presents as the limit of inquiry. Why do you consider this premise nothing more than mundane observation?
Quoting Richard B
Do you believe facts, which are narratives, lie trapped within language? Given such a situation, how can you think we can know and understand the world around us?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
Okay. Demonstrable fictions stand some distance away from gibberish. Demonstrable fictions have premises that can be true or false.
Quoting 180 Proof
Okay. As I take incoherences to be instances of invalidity, I see this list as your acknowledgement theistic narratives contain logical errors in the form of invalidity, as well as other types of logical errors.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
Okay. Your work includes exposing truth-claims unsupported by facts. Usually, a truth claim holds a premise embedded within.
Quoting 180 Proof
Let me quote you:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting PoeticUniverse
All of this arises from your insuperable immersion in existence. Your argument boils down to saying, "Existence must be because it is." The problem, a problem of perspective, consists in the fact we observe existence from a position the makes not-existence unreachable.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin?
Isomorphically, the world shares the same logical form as our thoughts and language. That explains why the world makes sense to us.
Quoting Richard B
This is helpful info. It bolsters my inclination to believe our sensory input is not entirely self-enclosed.
Causality needs the prospect of stuff not happening to get started. Nietzsche pointed out that if eternal recurrence is the case, everything that can happen already has done that. An interesting contrast to his efforts to provide causes for various predicaments.
Quoting ucarr
Lets take your first set A -> B
A= "Asking a question"
B= "Someone exists"
Yes, if a question is being 'asked', the word 'asked', a verb, necessitates that 'someone is doing the asking'
C can be simplified from "There is not nothing" into "There is(exists) something"
So if someone exists, then logically, something exists as well.
Quoting ucarr
Here is where the logic no longer works. Just because something exists, does not mean that the particulars of math, logic, and science are incomplete. Nor can it be logically claimed that it did not start from nothing. That's an assumption, not a proof.
So with that, the rest of the post is unnecessary to consider.
My disappointment doesn't apply to you personally. I find us disappointing, in this case, for considering this question as if it can be answered through philosophy.
I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist?
This seems to me to be a question which science may answer someday, if the question addresses how the universe came to be. But I don't think philosophers will no matter how hard they think about it.
I post the answer here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1
Ucarr is quite familiar with it. The only logical answer is that the universe is uncaused. What that logically entails is in the writing.
Well, I don't see how your question is warranted by addresses my reply.
What you say about the modus ponens chain of reasoning is correct.
As for the timeline of our universe, what do you make of a timeline bidirectionally irrational? Theres no Zeno progression from a beginning-to-now paradox because theres no beginning. Also, theres no collapse to nothing that invokes the paradox of something collapsing to nothing while something collapsing to nothing is a something because theres no collapse to nothing.
I admit that Im indulging in far-fetching speculation by conjecturing about a bi-directional infinite series timeline thats an eternal now based on the algebraic geometry of topology.
What do you think?
Quoting Paine
Terse and very much to the point. Thanks for posting this.
Quoting Paine
I'm inclined to think stuff is its own source of causality because causality involves symmetry and conservation. The symmetry of stuff mirrors out there, and then interaction with other symmetries causes emergence and the resulting ecology looks like a universe of variety. It's really just a lot of conserved transformations though.
Quoting Paine
I hope there's no eternal recurrence; a closed-loop reality is unappealing.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Are we compelled to say, "Nothing isn't an option." because our perspective is constrained by our insuperable immersion within being? The problem of perspective lies at the heart of my OP.
Quoting Ciceronianus
The problem of perspective includes the problem with asking, "How did the universe come to be?" This question sets up a linear timeline with a beginning of the universe. Because of the comprehension restriction problem, I have doubts about our understanding of the boundary of the universe. Some folks will hasten to say the universe has no center and no boundary.
Topology shows some promise of taking us beyond simple beginnings and endings.
Quoting 180 Proof
If X#÷^@WVH isn't gibberish, then please tell me what it says. I see the conjunction operator, but the terms on either side of it are unknown to me.
To ask the question of why anything exists requires a questioner, yes. But so what?
We also need a questioner to ask what dark matter is made of...does that observation solve the question of what dark matter is? Does it entail that a universe without dark matter is impossible?
Likewise the fact that sentience is a prerequisite for asking why anything exists, does not in any way answer the question. And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
In English, "logical NOT" and "thing" get concatenated into a noun, nothing, but it's a special noun.
If we say "There's nothing to be afraid of", we don't mean that there's exactly one thing to be afraid of, that we are calling "nothing". We mean there are zero things to be afraid of.
Likewise "nothing existing" in the cosmic sense doesn't mean some entity we're calling "nothing" has the property of existence. It means zero things have the property of existence, including space-time.
I mention English, because not all languages do this thing of concatenating "no + thing" into a noun.
So a sentence like "nothing is still something" translates into absolute gibberish in many languages. e.g. It can translate into "zero things are one thing", or in some cases "it is not the case that thing is a thing".
I meant to say that asking why something exists requires a determination that your use of "nothing" does not permit. The uncomfortable feeling engendered by Nietzsche's thought is the notion that everything has been determined already. Asking why something happens cannot operate in the infinitely determined or infinitely undetermined. The causes we deliberate upon cling to our mortality:
Another way to put it is through Spinoza saying that when try to imagine how the "undetermined" power of God thinks, we should not imagine it is how we deliberate to achieve our ends.
And there is, of course, that close student of Spinoza, Dirty Harry, who famously said: " A man has to know his limitations."
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Mijin
That because we ask the question, "Why not nothing?" there is not nothing means the question creates a tautology we can't escape. The insuperability of our being-ness tautology suggests why-being is the limit of our inquiry methodology. In the context of Philosophy, specifically ontology, this is not a trivial matter. Nominalism denies general being, but that denial merely shifts the tautology to individual beings.
Quoting Mijin
Do your examples highlight the special status of the why-being question? A questioner can separate himself from physics; he can't separate himself from himself are per existence in pursuit of its why-being.
Quoting Mijin
The tautology of the why-being inquiry, held at bay in non-self-referential inquiries, allows a fighting chance the questioner might arrive at the why-answers to physics. Step outside of physics and you step into the supernaturalism of theism. In the context of supernaturalism, perhaps things are created from nothing. At our level of physics while in the flesh, the inaccessibility of nothingness is a problem of perspective emergent from our state of being necessarily within existence.
Does supernaturalism allow the super-positioning of not being and being? As a natural person, it's hard for me to picture the transition point between nothing and something in the creation of something from nothing. How could such a transition point occur given the fact that such a transition is centered in somethingness? Is there a logical escape from the somethingness that is the phenomenon of creating somethingness from nothingness? If the agent creating something from nothing exists necessarily, how can the presence of this somethingness have contact with nothingness? Any presence of somethingness obliterates nothingness.
Quoting Paine
This sentence is a performative contradiction. You use explanation to make a declaration about the prohibition of explanation.
Whether it's an infinite regress of causes, postulated first causes, or a realm of pure chance, the way to the answer to why-being is endless.
Assuming thought only accessible through language of some type, I ask, "Was Parmenides a nominalist?"
Gödel proved that any mathematical system is necessarily incomplete, but this does not imply the "universe is open". Given the fact that there is a universe, it follows that there is not, and never was, a 'state of nothingness", that preceded it (temporally or causally). The reasoning is parallel to your support of your premise 1.
I suspect you wish to assume there did exist a prior state of "God sans universe". That's logically possible, but it's an unwarranted assumption. Here's why:
Define ToE: The Totality of Existence. If naturalism is true then ToE={the universe}; if deism is true then ToE={universe+God}
In either case (ToE) was not preceded by a "state of nothingness", for the reason I just mentioned: it is logically impossible for a "state of nothingness" to precede that which exists.
So, feel free to assume a God exists - but don't fool yourself into believing you can prove it to be the case.
I did not mean to express a prohibition. The Goddess implores the visitor to not try to say what is not sayable. She also observes that many do. The emphasis I put on conditions is to note that making 'what is not being' an object of thought is to ignore that we can only compare alternatives between beings. Hypothesizing the existence of a 'non-being' would be a division of being. It is this division that Parmenides objects to.
Quoting ucarr
Not in the sense the word is used today. The Goddess does not permit utterance to be separated from thinking. The whole issue of whether universals have an existence beyond a grouping of particulars, as nominalists deny, requires division Parmenides says are strictly the business of mortality.
This has nothing to do with what I've said.
I don't know what "insuperable immersion in being" means. But as I said, I think the only meaningful question is "why does the universe exist?" No purported inquiry into "nothing" is needed to address that question.
If so-called 'Nothing' has a capability to make something, then one didn't really have the claimed 'Nothing' in the first place, for capability is a something.
My vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydjBxed0Pm0
Tomorrow, I will focus on irrationality in the sense of an irrational number like pi, which is non-ending, non-repeating and can't be expressed as a ratio. I want us to examine some details of pi's irrationality in application to:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Relativist
This is a good argument and I've no quarrel with it.
I don't posit God existing in solitude prior to the universe. I agree there's no something from nothing.
My conjecture of interest to me says, "An infinite series with neither beginning nor ending has neither start point nor end point but, instead, there's a continuous now that progresses as an infinite series bi-directionally toward start point and end point without arrival at either pole. Whether one moves backwards or forwards in time, one is always in the now." The language makes it easy for us to say it as, "As I move in either direction, it's always now that I'm moving."
Why is this an open universe? My gut tells me a bilateral infinite series towards both poles doesn't accommodate discrete boundaries. What sort of boundaries contains the now? Time is the universal solvent that keeps us in the now. What ever stops time?
Quoting Paine
I'm of two minds on this one: a) If the not sayable exists, then of course one should not waste time in the folly of blathering on; b) As Robert Browning says, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?" Staying shut up violates human nature. It's natural that most theoreticians get laughed out of genteel company. Conservatism has its value. When, however, a Newton or an Einstein comes along, then the world, once apace with the new thinking, blathers on in raptures about the sublimities of genius. And thus a new conservative genteel who contemn the present day theoreticians carries on.
Quoting Paine
I agree with this.
Quoting Paine
I think I agree with this.
It's at least logically possible the universe is finite to the past, and therefore closed to the past. My personal opinion is that this is indeed the case, because an infinite past would entail a completed series of steps of finite duration (call these "days"). It is not logically possible to add up to infinity through increments of finite duration.
Being open to the future doesn't have any problems I can think of. Proceding forward in time, each day is a new "now", but the process will never "reach" infinity. In this context, an infinite future just entails an unending process. I guess if you embrace B-theory of time ("block" time), it would be a problem because it would entail a block that is infinite in extent - but IMO, this is an argument against block time.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
I think an eternal universe has no opening. What do you think?
Quoting Ciceronianus
It's saying that as long as you're Ciceronianus, you can't step outside of being Ciceronianus.
Quoting Ciceronianus
What're your thoughts on this question?
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I agree.
Why must there be a reason?
I understand your reaction to drawing a line regarding what can be said. I am quoting Parmenides rather than defending him in a different place from his. I want to throw him back to you as your problem as much as it can be mine.
There doesn't have to be a reason. Nor does the question have to be considered.
Only that if there is an answer, it will be determined by science (physicists probably, or cosmologists).
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
Let's suppose all of your scriptural investigations are correct: all of your encounters have been with religious texts that are demonstrable fictions. Regarding your anti-theism project, you still haven't crossed home plate.
There's a fundamental gap between "truth" and "provability" within formal systems (math, logic). Regarding verbal language, given its vagueness, ambiguity, and contextual variance, the gap is even wider.
A given scripture with God as a character might be demonstrable fiction in context, but can it be proven such in general terms? We know the claim it's fiction is true, but can we prove it formally? Perhaps we can in some instances. Can it be proven in all instances?
Can we conceptualize all scripture, written and still to be written, as an infinite series that can be summed to an integral without a remainder? Such a summation would be the proof of the infinite set of narratives being summed to an integral establishing cardinal falsehood. Of the two types of infinite series, the convergent type shows many instances with no "closed-form" solutions. The "exact answer" is the infinite series or the integral. A solution to a specific infinite series might be tailor made to fit, but the remainder will always be non-zero.
Let's put the proof of the fictional status of all scriptures into the context of the Turing Halting Problem.
Can we compute for all proofs of scriptural fiction a universal program that can determine whether the proof stops at a cardinal value, or keeps running, forever remaindering the summation to an integral? Turing shows us the answer is, "No." By writing a "pathological program" that inputs the contradiction of what the universal program validates, he created a paradoxical output that derails universality.
Gödel showed us that within all sufficient formal systems, you'll get a statement like this one, "This sentence is not provable." If it's provable, it's false (contradiction); if it's not provable, it's true (meaning it's a true, unprovable statement, i.e., undecidable). This is proof of permanent unprovability.
The character of God in a narrative, once rendered irrational, might be demonstrably false, but are there any formal systems that can always prove this falsehood? Are there any verbal languages that can always prove this falsehood?
Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.
Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
(1) at least one mystery
(2) created the whole of existence and
(3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in ways which are nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles").
- we note the ultimate lightnesss of being as we delve beneath it all; complexities arise in steps from that simplex; the supposed 'God' is a complexity and thus cannot be First.
Quoting 180 Proof
You seem to be saying math and logic have no practical applications.
Quoting ucarr
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem ended Hilbert's project for organizing all math logic into one universal system. This is a practical application of Gödel's logic.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting ucarr
My argument centers on the logic of the infinite series to integral sum. This container, being infinite, contains all possible verifications of scriptural fiction. As you know, this infinity of verifications doesn't preclude a citation of a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text, unless it is proven true within a consistent system; then no contradiction can exist.
Logical proof within a consistent system is what I'm asking for from you. I cite Gödel and Turing because, together, their work within consistent logical formalisms establishes that no such proof can be made within a consistent system with respect to all instances of true statements generated within the consistent system. There is no general refutation nor general proof of certain true statements generated within robust, consistent axiomatic systems. Certain of these statements are undecidable.
To summarize: a) your long, empirical list of scriptural statements doesn't preclude existence of scriptural truth, which example thereof you've asked for; b) proof within a robust, consistent axiomatic system of a finite number of true statements is possible; proof of all possible logical conclusions within a consistent axiomatic system is what's required, but Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem establish the necessary appearance of some logical statements undecidable.
You can choose to believe all scriptural narratives are fictions, you cannot formally prove all scriptural narratives are fictions. Gödel and Turing have shown, within formal systems there's an impassable gap between truth and provability due to the unavoidable generation of undecidable expressions.
:up: :up:
:eyes: wtf ...
"Cogito, ergo sum" is sloppy critical thinking since Descartes never really bother to go down the skepticism rabbit hole when he came up with it. Another tell-tale sign he was taking short cuts is that he claimed that he realized "God" was real even though he admitted Cogito, ergo sum can only prove the questioner is "real" which it doesn't even do that because all it does is use sleight of hand word play to cause the reader to accept a belief they already believe. Without answering the questions what "existence", "thinking", or what "existing" means you can't prove there is an "I" but since so few even understand the problem they just not in agreement with Descartes and his supporters.
Quoting ucarr
"religion is the opium of the masses" - Karl Marx.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful," - Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCAD 65).
Most ideas that come from Abrahamic religions start with an idea that supports the belief that God exists and then uses weak logic to support it. Even theism says that faith in "God" requires blind faith for it to work. Since theism rests solely on smoke, mirrors, and blind faith for it to work it can be be dismissed even if one doesn't from an agnostic position and/or a position where they do not follow any other system of beliefs.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful," - Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCAD 65).
Most ideas that come from Abrahamic religions start with an idea that supports the belief that God exists and then uses weak logic to support it. [ ... ] Since theism rests solely on smoke, mirrors, and [s]blind[/s] faith for it to work, it can be be dismissed ...[/quote]
:up: :up:
Descartes declares, "I think, therefore I am." He does this in order to launch a chain of reasoning towards the conclusion: "God's existence is necessary."
My simple variation on Descartes' Cogito undertakes a much easier task: establish that there is not nothing because the question, "Why is there not nothing?" was asked. Obviously, if a question is asked, there exists a questioner asking it. This means there's at least one existing thing, the questioner. Therefore, there is not nothing.
My variation on Descartes' Cogito goes as follows: If A?B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A.
Can you show a logical flaw in the above chain of reasoning?
Quoting dclements
Show how no elaboration of the meaning of existence and thinking refutes: If A?B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists. Sidebar: Even if you ignore the existence of the questioner, still, something exists, the question. We know this because the cause of my cogito variation is my response to, "Why is there not nothing?" If the question exists, then there's at least one existing thing, and that refutes nothingness.
Perhaps you're proceeding from an argument based on logical validity alone not proving facts of reality.
Logical validity, i.e., correct logical form, plus a sound argument, i.e., a true premise, proves a fact of reality. I reaffirm that my premise is true and my logical form is correct.
However, if I am wrong (What does a pragmatic anti-supernationalist like me know anyway?), ucarr, soundly refute these three implicit points . :chin:
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
I say that, "One cannot reason to existence." Reasoning presupposes existence, however. As for concluding existence cannot be proven, I'm less sanguine on that conclusion than you, chiefly because each human individual has a tautological-identity certainty of existence. I don't suppose the state of being's lack of proof allows you to doubt your own existence. If so, wouldn't that be taking solipsism one step further, "My skepticism is so extreme, I doubt even myself." ( I do suppose your pun on nothing is unintentional. Assuming the pun, the sentence is paradoxical.)
I think my upshot here regarding our views on existence vs. nothingness says, "They stand just about equal."
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm not seeking to prove God's existence by means of the cogito alone.* I think, however, that my argument from the asking of a question to the verification of at least one existing questioner is both valid and sound. Do you see errors?
*The heart of my reasoning for God's existence lies within the verbiage that earned another one of your WTFs.
I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
My argument is the self-evident argument to which you refer. I don't imagine myself presenting original thinking. I'm recognizing that the self-evident argument is all that's needed to answer the question.
Proposing the self-evident argument as the sufficient argument agrees with your statement: "...nothing negates or prevents existence." We're both saying that reality is fundamentally something; a world equal to nothing is impossible.
:up: I.e. nothing-ness (or total absence of possible worlds).
Perhaps the constant jiggling of the zero-point energy (that never reaches zero) is showing that 'Nothing' cannot be gotten to, and so it is ever up to something.
That you're asking me this proves it wrong. A Universe with no 'opening' never opened, so does not exist, logically.
If you're trying to posit a metaphysical eternity, I'm with 180. This is nonsense.
Quoting AmadeusD
If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, (this stipulated on the basis of the ancillary assumption the universe is the totality of existence). If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something.
Quoting AmadeusD
Regarding your use of "metaphysical" in context here, "Do you mean foundational abstract premises and principles nevertheless a part of the natural world? Or do you mean a non-physical realm?
Perhaps 'quantum uncertainty' ... such that "nothing" necessarily fluctuates and (at some threshold) a density of fluctuations (contingent) not-nothing aka "something" happens. :nerd:
addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1024032
Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that.
In what that hypothetical event is embedded is another question entirely. One which I doubt humans can ever get any kind of a handle on.
Quoting ucarr
Not really, no. If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there).
Quoting ucarr
I don't think this makes sense. You are positing a metaphysical eternity in which a 'never began' universe must sit. That is a nonsense (that doesn't make it wrong - just nonsensical. It is likely many of these concepts elude sense-making for humans entirely).
I don't mean either of the things you posited, and they do not seem relevant questions.
Quoting 180 Proof
If your "quantum uncertainty" is alternate wording for "quantum vacuum" with its altering energy and virtual particles bound by physical laws, then we're agreeing that this state makes a close approach to nothing. The binding physical laws, however, keep it within the natural world. The methodological naturalism of the scientific community holds it firmly within reality. Nothing within physics is distinct from philosophical nothing.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. Therein each side must support its claims with arguments potentially falsifiable.
Quoting AmadeusD
Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
As I read you, you agree that something cannot come from nothing. Also, you mention, "If the facts are that we have a Universe..." followed by you declaring, "...'fluctuations in nothing' is nonsense." In conclusion, I think you believe the universe real, and you don't think it came from nothing. So, you know the universe is fundamentally something. You also know it didn't start itself in nothing because to begin presumes an existing something.
Yes, and we've been speculating in the context of physics (re: the universe). Btw, "philosophical nothing" is more precisely referred to as nothing-ness (i.e. total absence of possible worlds) as distinct from no-thing (e.g. quantum vacuum).
'Nothing' has no time.
Yes, this is another claim I can use to argue the possibility of eternal universe.
I did. This is a circle you tend to go in throughout all exchanges I've seen you have.
The argument is that something with no beginning never began, and so does not exist. That is an argument. It is a sound one. We can imagine this well enough, but it fails quite quickly because a metaphysical eternity is conceptually empty. So, I would prefer if you did not make claims that attempt to paint your interlocutors as failing, where hte failure is your ability to understand what is being said clearly enough to apply it to your concepts. You can disagree all you want (and I welcome it!). But this sort of "You're not playing the game" when I've clearly done what you're saying I haven't will go nowhere.
Quoting ucarr
No, it does not. There is no analogy between the two that can hold.
Quoting ucarr
So, I did make an argument. Great. Please stop pretending I haven't.
A=A is an identity concept. It has nothing to do with existence and says absolutely nothing about eternity.
Quoting ucarr
Then you are not reading me very clearly at all. You are not adequately distinguishing between descriptions and reasonings. We have a Universe. We cannot assume it was "beginning-less" because there is no logical way for that to be the case. That does not mean it isn't true. It means you cannot support it with reason. You need to be far more careful about how you treat concepts, less you continue to run into total non sequiturs like A=A having something to do with the Universe having a beginning.
Quoting ucarr
I have no choice but to accept the Universe is real. Its not my belief, its an overwhelming reality. I suppose you can call this a belief, but it is a recognition. Beliefs behave differently.
The Universe is obviously something, fundamentally or otherwise. I don't 'know' anything beyond that hte Universe exists. I'm am illustrating that reason cannot get us to an infinite Universe, and the concept of a Universe with no boundaries along any axes (i.e space, time, expansive capacity etc..) is essentially a meaningless failure to adequate understand the nature of "something".
The more interesting, and in my view, only, question we can ask here is "What is outside the Universe?". No idea. But if it's expanding, we have extremely good reason to think it's expanding into something (else). This makes it pretty clear an "open-ended" Universe cannot be - otherwise expansion would be nonsense.
Quoting jgill
Yes, I do. I characterize zero as strategic absence within math. It's function also extends to what I call, "not yet, but presently accountable." This refers to human intentions looking forward to how abstractly designed outcomes blossom over time.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Do you think you began with your parent's dna combined at fertilization? If not, where and when did you begin? If p?q, does q begin at p? If not, where and when does q begin?
In your use of "metaphysical" are you referring to abstract rules attempting to describe how the universe is structured and governed formally, or, are you, on the other hand, referring to a postulated non-material realm of cosmic mind that structures and governs formally?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
Here's an example of you making a declaration with no supporting argument. I say that in the courtroom, as in the debate room, each side must support its declarations with a supporting logical argument and or facts. I stand by my claim as factually correct. I encourage you to present independently verifiable facts that refute my claim.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting AmadeusD
Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? If you do, explain how this is possible.
Quoting AmadeusD
You're incorrectly combining the scientific quantum vacuum, which is subject to physical laws with the philosophical nothingness, which is subject to nothing.
Quoting AmadeusD
You seem to think there are true things not logical. Well considered responses to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says, "We think undecidable statements generated by first-order axiomatic systems are true, although we can't prove them within the axiomatic system that generated them. Is this what you're saying?
Quoting AmadeusD
Why do you think a universe with no opening also has no boundaries? Don't distinct planetary systems have boundaries? Why do you think a universe with no opening has no discrete geometry?
Quoting AmadeusD
Why do you think universe with an outside is not, by definition, a contradiction?
Quoting ucarr
Yes. The moment of 'Zygotization' is when "I" began. Exactly what I was to be wasn't yet determined. I'm not sure how you want to relate this to 'the universe' though?
Quoting ucarr
w....what?? P implying Q doesn't give us anything about existence, beginnings or anything else. That's a relation. Semantic entailment doesn't even really deal with our reality. Just linguistic 'must's. It seems like you want arguments, but present only irrelevant semi-philosophical-sounding points?
Quoting ucarr
I use it to refer to metaphysics. I did not come up with the concept, nor do I posit some novel definition of such. "What is possible" is what metaphysics deals with outside the constraints of empirical observation. I don't mean this to be rude, but it is a highly perplexing exchange in this way. Your two suggested possible meanings neither are reasonable, relevant or , in my view able to be inferred from my use of metaphysical.
Quoting ucarr
Hmm. While your general point is totally valid, its entirely inapt here: If you told me that the act of selling a couple of oranges must have some analogy to a Dolphin headbutting an Orca, i'd say the same thing. There is no analogy. You made that claim - you need to support it. Not me. The onus is on you to support your purported analogy. I note you try to do this in your reply - so lets deal with it..
Quoting ucarr
You are not talking about anything for which we have verifiable facts. This probably explains why no one can quite understand what you're saying, when your responses are in a different lane to your questions. And why that happens a lot. In a court case we are not dealing with hypotheticals, metaphysics and speculation on the nature of reality. There is no analogy between the two. There is no outcome to be gleaned from this discussion and no judge to adjudicate. The only thing we roughly have in common with a court room is that we're trying to get across disparate points of view. That's it. There is no analogy in terms of evidential standards or logical requirements or anything else (if you see it differently, that's fine, but I reject it so we can't keep arguing about it).
Quoting ucarr
I do not know why you keep making total non sequiturs and pretending they make sense.
The fact that A=A says literally nothing about existence or beginnings. Because it doesn't. It tells us a relation between two objects (or, two concepts which are one object). This is patent, as A=A literally does not tell us anything about those things. The bold is particularly bad thinking, wording and general discussion. I don't even take myself to have an identity. Even if I did, this question has nothing to do with my claim about the Universe.
Quoting ucarr
I am neither incorrectly, or correctly doing that. I am telling you, on your own terms, what my view of the position that the Universe has no beginning could mean and whether I think it's plausible.
That said, "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense in both senses. Physical 'nothing' is literally not nothing. No-thing. Nothing. They are the same. If there's some special physics use of 'nothingness' I'm not using it. You'd do well not to import your own conceptual uses of things into other's speech.
Quoting ucarr
No. I didn't claim 'true' for anything. Logic can only work on the information you currently have (or, conceptually i guess but that's total abstractness and not helpful here). Something like "if/then" only works if you know what sits between those words. We have no clue, at all, what's 'beyond our Universe' if anything. We cannot use logic to speak about anything outside the Universe.
What we can say: anything which exists, began to exist. Therefore, there is no move open to get to an open-ended Universe (at the back end, anyway. Perhaps an infinite-in-time Universe can be posited).
If further information gives us reason to think there actually is something out there, that would support this. If we came to information which actually indicated the Universe were infinite (i.e we'd have to just brute accept no start point then) then your argument works. We don't have that information, and so based on the above we can't posit that. We do not have logical infinites in reality, only in concept. This is why I brought in metaphysics: It is a metaphysical claim, not a logical one, that there could be no infinite past. I even accept that logically, in the abstract, we could posit an infinite universe without contradiction. But, you see to want to talk about the actual Universe.
Maths deals with infinites, but requires things like "numbers are infinite" to support the type of logic you're wanting in here. There's nothing ipso facto wrong with this, because as noted, infinites can be dealt with - but they cannot (it seems) give us reasons in the real world.
Quoting ucarr
I don't, and didn't say this. Please try to read more carefully.
Quoting ucarr
This is a non sequitur - we are not talking about planetary systems. I wont address it.
A Universe with no opening has no temporal boundary. That is what I indicated, and i did not at any stage say anything that can be reasonable inferred to mean I think an infinite universe has no discreet geometry. Please, PLEASE read more carefully. It is going to be extremely difficult if most responses are my correctly bad reading and assumptions you're making.
Quoting AmadeusD
Your parents carried your dna long before you were born. There would be no you without it. So, did you start to be before you were born?
Quoting AmadeusD
We've been talking about things beginning. No universe, no you. If so, then maybe you know something about the universe's beginning. If you don't know about it, maybe it's because there was no beginning; maybe the universe has always been incomplete.
Quoting AmadeusD
p?q What about parents imply Quincy, their son?
Quoting AmadeusD
You ever heard about a wise guy who's connected? It's all about being connected, man. Arguments, likewise, are all about connections. You've never had an argument about something important?
Quoting AmadeusD
Okay. So metaphysical to you means abstraction.
Quoting AmadeusD
Okay, above is an argument: you think my analogical pairing of dialectic and courtroom is faulty.
The ancient Greeks used the term dialectic to refer to various methods of reasoning and discussion in order to discover the truth.
Why do you think the above definition has no analogy with the purpose in a courtroom?
Quoting AmadeusD
The courtroom does deal with the nature of reality. Someone was murdered. The court wants to know who committed the murder. That's an investigation into reality.
Socrates was put on trial in a state courtroom in Athens. He was charged with disrespecting the gods approved by the state. He was sentenced to death and executed. Why do you think the courtroom takes no interest in reasoned arguments about the truth?
Quoting ucarr
If you have no identity, you don't exist, right?
Quoting AmadeusD
Your are like a mirror? You only reflect back some other being's face? When there's no being before you, you have no face of your own?
Quoting AmadeusD
Sorry, please repeat your claim about the universe.
Quoting AmadeusD
Okay. You refer to the no possible worlds definition of nothingness.
Quoting AmadeusD
This describes my infinite universe with no opening.
Quoting AmadeusD
You think logic and metaphysics distinct. Do you think them disjoint?
Quoting AmadeusD
Since civil engineers use calculus to design bridges, why do you think calculations employing infinite values have no practical applications?
Quoting AmadeusD
Some current theories of the origin of the universe allow for a quantum gravity mediated unification of QM and Relativity. In some of these theories, allowance is made for time without a beginning.
No. They carried their DNA. This is bizarre. Almost every reply is a non sequitur that butters no bread at all. I'm having fun though.
Quoting ucarr
I've directly, unambiguously answered this. If you don't grok it, please do not put that on me.
Quoting ucarr
Babble. And that is not to dismiss it - it's an interesting through, but it is babbling. "If so" what? Totally nonsensical in situ.
Quoting ucarr
...w.....what? You are, sorry to say, going to need to make sense for me to be able to reply.
Quoting ucarr
No. It means what metaphysics actually is. This is getting tiresome.
Quoting ucarr
I gave you specific, direct reasoning for this. YOu need to read an entire post before replying my friend. Tiresome.
Quoting ucarr
You gave no definition of anything. Non sequitur.
Quoting ucarr
No. It's not even an investigation. It's an interrogation of an investigation (usually). The investigation was already done. And it was not, in any way that can be made sensible, relevant to what we're talking about.
Quoting ucarr
He was mostly charged with corrupting the Youth. Impiety was not a driver of his charge, as I understand.
The bold: you continually put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them. I have politely asked you to stop doing this. You have not stopped.
One more warning: Do not put words in my mouth. I will stop responding if I see this again. You need to carefully read, and review your responses to ensure you are not A. making things up, and B. writing irrelevant replies: If you want a fruitful exchange.
Quoting ucarr
No. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Identity. It tells me you have never looked into the philosophical issue of identity. It is not at all required that identity holds for one to exist.
Quoting ucarr
Absolutely nonsense that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I am whatever I am. There is no identity to it - its a flux of various parameters. My reflection in the mirror has almost nothing at all to do with the concept of identity (unless you mean social identity, which would explain a lot your going-wrongs here).
Quoting ucarr
It could not be open ended as, at some stage, it began (again, I posited that future points could be infinite, but I also don't think that - it just seems logically more reliable than the reverse).
Quoting ucarr
That is what you are requiring of your exchange. It is now quite clear that you are using both concepts interchangeably to disagree with both in different exchanges. That's fine, as it seems you're comfortable with both concepts, in different exchanges. But if they are separate concepts, please do not run them together. It may simply be that this is a clarifying exchange for both of us - that's a good thing.
Quoting ucarr
It does not, as "in time" still imports a start-date as it were. Your infinite universe can only have one open end (on my view, I'm not making a logical argument at this stage because there's no incoherence in your concept - as noted). If you truly think something can exist with no start point, I'll leave you to it. This isn't the discussion for me.
Quoting ucarr
No, i don't. You need to stop telling people what they think, Its so intensely bad for a good faith exchange that I am surprised people entertain you when you do this.
Quoting ucarr
Give me a calculation that applied to the construction of a bridge which required an infinite set. This is another non sequitur. Unless you think all maths is ipso facto dealing with infinites? In which case again, this is not the discussion for me.
Quoting ucarr
If sure it is, because its theoretical. But in real life, we have no reason whatsoever to posit "time without a beginning". Because time is duration. Duration requires a start and finish to be termed as such. Otherwise, we're not talking about time - which I suspect is what's happened there, and you've missed it.
Very much appreciate your time and effort, despite the difficulties.
I have responses to everything in your latest post. However, I dont wish to aggravate you excessively. I acknowledge your frustration with and distaste for my brand of dialectics. I too have been having fun during our exchanges. Im willing to stop here. I dont want your already hot blood to boil over. I know that you, being a trial lawyer, have much work to do, and
thus you dont need aggravating distractions.
As you know from experience, l ask you a lot of questions about what you think and why. I think youre both incorrect and unjust in your accusation. I try to interpret what you tell me about yourself, and then I announce my interpretation. I dont put words into your mouth.
If you need a long break from me, Im happy to let you have it. I look forward to dialoguing with you in future.
Best Wishes
ucarr, buddy, this is utterly bizarre.
I have no hot blood.
I am not a trial lawyer.
If you see yourself as aggravating, that should say all that needs to be said.
You are difficult to talk to, because you often make little sense. It ends there.