Anyone have a legit answer for this? No "just because". And I remind you, if it's explainable, it doesn't answer the question.

Jesus Walks,
Patriot

Because if there wasn't something to compare to that nothing, then that nothing would be something in itself. Nothing can be defined without some opposing element (being literal here...)

I mean why isn't the universe void? Why is there even matter to begin with?

Patriot

If you can answer that, then you will answer the question that man has been asking since it knew how to ask.

However, I will think about it and come back to you.

Anyone have a legit answer for this? No "just because". And I remind you, if it's explainable, it doesn't answer the question.

Jesus Walks,
PatriotI guess it was more meaningful that way.

It is. Allways, how could it have not been?

Why Is There Anything, Rather Than Nothing?
Anyone have a legit answer for this? No "just because". And I remind you, if it's explainable, it doesn't answer the question.

Because pink is my favourite colour.

***

No, seriously, I think the above is a non-question, logically speaking. I don't think it can be answered without calling upon some absolute that gave/gives things purpose.

Why should nothing exist? Alas, nothing cannot exist, it is nothing, so something has to exist. Something might be more beautiful than nothing.

I suppose if you find out the answer the label "godlike" could be affixed to you.

Even nothing is something. If you look at space it contains atomic particles that you can't see which makes you think there's nothing but in reality nothing has things in it.

There is nothing in real nothing, space is not a real nothing.

Yes, there is no void in nothing, there is nothing. Its a hard concept for most brains to fathom.
And why there is something and not nothing is an excellent question that "sciforums" definately isn't going to answer.
There should be nothing. Something is wierd.

It's how you're asking your question that prevents an answer. Try this:

If there is no nothing,
or no something,
then what is there?

Simple:
When there's no nothing, there's something. (Because nothing doesn't exist.)
And when there's no something, there's nothing. (Because something doesn't exist.)

It all depends what's in your head. Something or nothing.

Nothing doesn't exist because it was never given a chance. Somethings was always around blocking it's existence. You can't have nothing when something refuses to go away.

It's not such a strange question as it would seem. Mathematicians fight bloody battles about such things as whether Numbers (yep, integers, reals, irrationals etc) exist at all.

Intro: http://www.pitt.edu/~csd6/metaphysics2002/Handout17.pdf

What's reality, and what's merely a projection of our attempts to understand it...

Trouble is, Nothing is provable; if Nothing existed -- who'd be around to observe it, record it?

Mmm. Somehow, "God" wants to butt in here...

I agree with Lou, something is wrong, there should be nothing.

But something is always found whenever and wherever they look!

"whenever" and "wherever" imply something. And yeah, where there's something there's bound to be something else. Its not wierd that there's something else on top of the something.
The strange part is that there's something in the first place.

Even nothing in and of itself is something, isn't it.

true "nothing" does not exist because if it did exist it would violate its own laws about itself. the concept of nothing only exists becaue there is "something and humans like to look for opposites when asking questions about things of this nature. This is why it is known that energy can not be created or destroyed.

Just my opinions though

L8rs

So then we're talking about existence as something.

And for existence not to be something -- but to be nothing -- it would have to not exist.

Therefore nothing does not exist!

Assumption:
"nothing" is non-existance.

Therefore:
"nothing" cannot exist.

Therefore:
something exists.

There is a proof on why something exists.

Inside this universe there is spacetime. Within it, 'nothing' cannot exist. Even a vacuum is not really empty: it constantly produces new particles and semi-particles:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s13.htm

Our best human-created vacuums are piffle (several millions particles per m3) compared with the ones in outer space (a few particles on average per m3) btw.

'Nature abhors vacuum' they used to say. Within our universe that would seem to be true. Even in the best of vacuums you'd still have some raw creative energy, meaning that like reaching exactly zero degrees Kelvin, it is something impossible to achieve.

'Outside' our universe might be real 'nothing' (not even Laws of Nature, no Raw Energy, no Dimensions, zip), but we will probably never know for sure.

There might be other such 'pockets of existence', but divided by ... what?

Nothing exists nowhere.

anthropic principle. if the universe were any different you would not know it.
http://www.geocities.com/lungdoctor_tn/Anthropic_Principle.htm

moreover, perhaps for trillions of trillions of trillions^trillions^trillions^trillions^trillions of years there was nothing, only there as nobody around to see it.

If there was truly nothing, then there should not be something around now...

I have read over the responses so far, and they all pretty much assert that there cannot be nothing in this universe.... that there is definitely something.... that because there is something now there must always have been something.... that we couldn't know "nothing" as such. However, none of these responses, at least that I can tell, really touch upon the question asked, "WHY is there something, rather than nothing." I mean... it's pretty obvious that there is something, but why?

Anyway, I've been thinking about the question of existence. It seems to me, that modern day thought considers existence in a different way than the origin of the term. When you consider the terms "existence," "being," "to be," "to exist," something you should note is that these are all verb forms. Common thought would consider existence under the light of a noun, an object, rather than an activity. One might say that existence is a state of being. However, here again, we are left with the overriding fact that it is a state of activity, since being itself is also a verb form.

What is interesting to note is that even when something appears still, inactive, it is really in motion on the molecular level (and lower). It would seem, then, that things, or beings, are really, quite simply, relative to a delineated movement within space-time. What I mean by this is that all things are in motion at the basest level, and that perhaps what makes things up is motion itself, and forms, on whatever level, are really compositions of movements (I suppose this is something similar to string theory).

Therefore, it seems to me, that "nothing" is simply non-motion. That is, if motion ever ceased, then nothing would exist. The question then, in a more clarified sense, is why is there movement, rather than non-movement?

An interesting side-note is that one classical description of God is that God is Pure Act.

Can "something" become "nothing"? The solar system swallows the earth. The milky way swallows the solar system. The endless universe swallows the galaxy. Endless eternity swallows the endless universe. In other words, there's now... nothing.

Why should "nothing" be an alternative to "anything"?

I don't see why that should be necessarily true.

this thread is saying nothing

my two cents

there is be something because otherwise we wouldn't be able to have this discussion.

(((((((why is there anything, rather than nothing))))))?..

first understand that you are asking this dualistically. ie., you are presupposing that theree exists an 'anything' and a 'nothing'--l;et us call these terms abstracts.
'anything' 'nothing'

Dualism --the sense of conflicting oppo-sites arises with analytical thinking. where thought can chop up reality into sizeable pieces which logic then seeks to analyze. but is this process reality?
well it is reality in the sense that we actually do it in our heads, but does doing it in our heads MEAN that there exists an 'anything' and a 'nothing'? i don't think so!

so having done th choppin up, we can then reconciliate this by understanding how these terms relate to each other. for example, to even RECOGNIZE 'anything' we would need the idea of 'nothing', yeah? and to even dig 'nuthin' we would need a conept of 'anything'. so what's that tell us? it means that you cannot HAVe one withOUT the other. They arise togther simultaneously.....!!!!!!!!!
Now although this was a mental excercise, the latter part of the answer probably fits better than the assumption of there only being 'anything' or only being 'nothin', for surely that wouldn't make sense...HOw ould you only have 'nothing' or only have 'anything'
it'd be like only having 'up' without 'down' wouldn't it

and then of course is the excluded middle

"and then of course is the excluded middle"

Ah! Does that have a hollow centre, too? ;)

"excluded middle" "hollow centre"

hehe

Without something there wouldn't be a word for nothing.

Does nothing need a word to exist?

Two even. No + thing. ;)

btw duendy, 'the excluded middle" *was* unacceptable to the 'intuitionist' school of mathematics (Brouwer)

As an example of this difference, law of the excluded middle, while classically valid, is not intuitionistically valid, because, in a logical calculus that allows it, it's possible to argue P ∨ ¬P without knowing which one specifically is the case. This is fine if one assumes that the law of the excluded middle is some kind of subtle truth inherent in the nature of being; but if the validity of a mental construct is entirely dependent upon its coherence with its context (i.e., the mind), then epistemological opacity is, in effect, cheating.

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Why should "nothing" be an alternative to "anything"?

I don't see why that should be necessarily true.

An alternative indicates choice. And "anything" are components. Thus there are boundaries -- objects that are independent.

However, when I contemplate eternity, my mind keeps penetrating endlessly into darkness because all I encounter is... nothing.

So let's assume in another galaxy far far away there's another android contemplating eternity. His mind would have already swept me aside in blissful ignorance of my existence: I've become nothing!

an>roid.v2 :"However, when I contemplate eternity, my mind keeps penetrating endlessly into darkness because all I encounter is ... nothing"

But you MIND is 'there' an>roid.v2, and that is something........
?

something and nothing are simply humam words and perspectives of our limited mind
in fact both can be true and fake is only the manner in wich the question is asked
but to answer the question of this thread
humans are made of something and all they can see is something and it is a humam being that's making this question...

No, seriously, I think the above is a non-question, logically speaking. I don't think it can be answered without calling upon some absolute that gave/gives things purpose.

I agree, and I'd like to expand on that:



When you ask "why?" of something you mean to find out either of two things:

- The cause or circumstance which precedes the occurrence you are questioning (e.g why did the ball move?; because it was hit by another one).

This is a mechanistic explanation.

- A "purpose", defined as an event in the future for which the occurrence takes place. (e.g why are you eating food?; because by doing so I will satiate my hunger).

This is a teleological explanation.



Neither question can be asked intelligibly about reality as a whole, which is your intention here. (why is there anything?, why reality?).

As it regards the mechanistic question, we are considering a causal chain, and by logic we are compelled to conclude the following:

1. There is a first cause, call it God/Nature/Universe or whatever, that is itself uncaused (it has always existed); hence there is no "why" for this entity in the mechanistic sense.

Other options are illogical, like proposing that the Universe (or God) is it's own cause (gave birth to itself, something came out of nothing), or that there is no first cause, so we have an infinite causal chain, this chain as a whole hanging from nothing.


As it regards the teleological question, we should remind ourselves that the word "purpose" only has meaning as a property of something or someone. To wit, you say "his/her/it's purpose", purposes don't just float around and exist independently of anything, that's nonsense.

We should also remind ourselves of a problem regarding self reference:

Suppose I say that the purpose of your existence is to fulfill a wish of yours. That's equivalent to saying "You exist/came into being because you want to do x".
Clearly enough, that's an impossible statement, as it demands that your own purpose (a purpose that you created) exists before you come into being.


With this in mind, let us consider the initial question again: Why is there anything?

1. As we saw, in a mechanistic sense, we reach a point where we have to accept that there is no why, or plunge into absurdity.

2. In the teleological sense, we have seen that, just as things cannot be their own cause, things cannot be their own purpose either, nor can things exist (come into being) for the sake of fulfilling their own purposes.
Therefore the question "why is there anything? (including God/first cause)" is meaningless, since to make it significant (answerable) you would have to suppose another thing/entity whose purposes Reality's existence serves, because purposes can't not belong to anything, and Reality cannot be it's own purpose).


Either way we have to accept that there is no why once we reach a certain point. "why" can only be asked about parts of reality, and not about reality as a whole.

"WHY is there something, rather than nothing."

out of the infinite number of possible states of the universe, why would it favor nothing? there is only one "nothing" but there is a nearly infinite number of "something"s. perhaps at some point in the past there was nothing, but the universe moved on to a different state, a state of "something."

out of the infinite number of possible states of the universe, why would it favor nothing? there is only one "nothing" but there is a nearly infinite number of "something"s. perhaps at some point in the past there was nothing, but the universe moved on to a different state, a state of "something."

You are suggesting that nothingness is one of the possible states the universe can adopt, and that is as valid as saying that death is one of the possible states a person can adopt. I hope you can see that death is not a state, and that to say "Einstein is dead" is a grammatical error, used for the sake of expressing an idea, but not to be taken literally.
"Einstein isn't" is probably the most accurate expression that we can give in this case.
A state of nothingness, then, implies that the "universe isn't", therefore no states or properties can be attributed to it, as it doesn't exist.
Furthermore, a state of nothingness cannot go through changes, as that would imply that something came out of nothing, which is impossible.

an>roid.v2 :"However, when I contemplate eternity, my mind keeps penetrating endlessly into darkness because all I encounter is ... nothing"

But you MIND is 'there' an>roid.v2, and that is something........
?

So then, as I originally concluded, nothing must not exist in order for it to be nothing.

However, if "there" is something, then it's only 'cuz "there" becomes.
Is that what consciousness does? It creates something from nothing?
<br>
something and nothing are simply humam words and perspectives of our limited mind ... and it is a humam being that's making this question...

Ah shucks, Ronhrin... don't be such a defeatist.

Übergänger's comments are worthwhile. I just note that things do briefly come from nothing, with neither purpose nor cause, as far as I know. Specifically, the vacuum polarization is such a case. (An electron and positron briefly appear from vacuum, but as this violates conservtion of energy, they quickly mutually annihilate, restoring the "nothing" they came from.) Vacuum polarization is not forbidden by physical laws. It also seems self evident that the universe is consistent with physical Laws. Thus an answer to the original question might be: "Somethings come into existence because they are not forbidden." With this view the question transforms into "Why are the physical laws as they are?"

I just note that things do briefly come from nothing, with neither purpose nor cause, as far as I know.

With this view the question transforms into "Why are the physical laws as they are?"

Raw vacuum is not 'nothing'.

Physical laws abide the number of spatial dimensions. Like for instance electomagnetism can only work in 3 dimensions (or 1, but that's a trivial solution).

((an>roid.v2))) "If "there" is something, then it's only cuz "there" BECOMES. Is that what consciousness does? It creates something from nothing?"

look at it this way, analogizing this question with music. in order to understand and appreciate music, we NEEd silence/space/nothing. Usually not noticed yet without it being there it'd be unlistenable...wouldn't make sense

same with the surroundings. we look at trees, clouds, objects, and most often ignore the space wich gives them their unique shapes, and movment. so rather than giving th 'power' of creation to 'consciousness' we see that both consciousness and nothing must arise TOGETHER to make any SENSE

without realizing this, i think we can imagine a 'nothing' without 'something'...but can you imagine 'up' without KNOWING 'down'?

"Somethings come into existence because they are not forbidden."
amen brotha

1. How do you know something can't come from nothing? We obviously have something, I am typing on something right now. Where did it come from? If you think that something can't come from nothing then you need not pose the question of why there is something rather than nothing, because "nothing" is then impossible, merely a mistaken concept that humans have created.

2. If a person lives, they are made of matter. If they die, they are made of matter. It is merely going from an organized "state" of a functional body, to a disorganized "state" of worm food. If the universe has 0 matter, I would say it had nothing (I guess you can count the universe as "something" but I think you are mistaken). If the universe has 0 total matter (antimatter+matter=0) you could still say that it has nothing, but you would have to define what you consider "something" and "nothing".

((an>roid.v2))) "If "there" is something, then it's only cuz "there" BECOMES. Is that what consciousness does? It creates something from nothing?"

look at it this way, analogizing this question with music. in order to understand and appreciate music, we NEEd silence/space/nothing. Usually not noticed yet without it being there it'd be unlistenable...wouldn't make sense

same with the surroundings. we look at trees, clouds, objects, and most often ignore the space wich gives them their unique shapes, and movment. so rather than giving th 'power' of creation to 'consciousness' we see that both consciousness and nothing must arise TOGETHER to make any SENSE

without realizing this, i think we can imagine a 'nothing' without 'something'...but can you imagine 'up' without KNOWING 'down'?



No -- I didn't mean consciousness as in an interception of an earlier ready-made world that already surrounds us, but consciousness as in the spark of naked being that becomes as it becomes. What I'm trying to figure out now is whether such a spark pushes into nothing or pulls away from it.

I think there is a critical distinction to be made here. It regards the term "nothing" (imagine htat ;)). What is it that we mean by "nothing?" Do we mean "no thing?" Or do we mean "nothingness?" The difference being that thing is a constructed form. When there is "no thing," what is meant is that there are no constructed forms (i.e., that which all constructed forms are made of is all that is). However, if you are talking about "nothingness," then this would mean that no things exist, nor that which makes up things (i.e., the basest existence-stuff).

By the discussion had so far, I would assume that "nothingness" is the rendering meant. In this case, I would agree with RosaMagika's argument, it is a non-sensical question, since it would mean that there has always been somethingness, or existence, and there can never have been a time when there was nothingness.

However, if one means "no thing," then the argument turns into something different altogether. The question becomes, "why are there constructed forms, or things?" If we consider the basest existence-stuff to be otherwise than a thing, that is, an unconstructed form, then we could say that things are a result of construction of this unconstructed form. However, the "why" (i.e., reason, or purpose) hasn't yet been answered. I suppose in order to answer the question, you'd first have to ascertain what the nature of the basest existence-stuff is. I believe it is infinite, and therefore, the constructed forms are a result of it's very own will, meeting out the possibilities of finite constructed forms.

Now I'm beginning to question nothingness, or no things, as proceeding the present -- any present. Hence something is the wave of reality in existence instantaneously chasing... nothingness. Isn't that beautiful?

((anroid>v.2)))....i mean what you mean too. which is why i say they arise togther.....i dont envisage 'consciousness' as some thing coming into a 'ready made world'...but that for consciousness to know itself there must be nothing/space/nonconsciousness

as for 'up' to know itself therer simply HAs to be 'down'. it is a dynamic pattern....a gestalt. what the analytical way of thinking does it analyze--chps reality into bits to try and understand 'it'...and then doing so can then get 'lost' and assume the abstracts it is playing with ARE reality. that one could HAVe 'nothing' withOUT 'something'

wave of reality in existence instantaneously chasing...
wtf does that mean?

a) If you mean "nothing" then it is a nonsensical question because there can't be nothing.
b) If you mean "no things" then the answer is "because they can". Properties of the universe allow "things" to come into being.

The only question then to be asked is "why are the properties the way they are". Here is my favorite answer: WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPAL! Someone else can go more in-depth with that question if they like.

cato: wtf does that mean? If you mean "nothing" then it is a nonsensical question because there can't be nothing. If you mean "no things" then the answer is "because they can". Properties of the universe allow "things" to come into being.That has nothing to do with what I said in reference to nothingness. If "no things" can come into being because of the properties of the universe, then they only do so in accordance with the properties of the universe, in which case these properties, these somethings, are already in existence, *awaiting* to be implemented. Yeah, I understand that. I was referring to nonexistence. Nothing. No thing. Nothingness. No something. No properties. Zilch.


But to answer your whatthefuck question from a different angle:

duendy: Nothingness and something rising together...
You mean like light and darkness? Acknowledging the other's existence, reflecting the other's existence, necessitating the other's existence? Hence nonexistence and existence acknowledging, reflecting, necessitating the other as one? I can see that being true from within existence itself… But what about from nonexistence's vantage point?

Let's assume you could actually travel into nonexistence—as you could into deep space: you would observe that something in nonexistence would not exist because even nothing does not exist. I think we're clear on that, right? Yet, inverted, within our own existence of a universe that surrounds us, nothingness exists as a concept—one can almost touch it in its uncanny simplicity. True? So then, what is it that we can almost touch, but are impeded from touching? And what is it about nonexistence that forbids the very notion of our existence, including the very concept of "existence"? Indeed, what I'm referring to cancels us and doesn't require our existence to "not be" itself.
<br>

Note:
…because even nothing does not exist.From within existence, or from within our minds, "nothing" is a concept—hence it exists in a manner of speaking. But from within nonexistence, nothing is… nothing (because it can not be "something").

Oh I see... you guys are debating the validity of one over the other. :: Yawn ::

((an>roid.v2))).....you simply cannot KNOW nothingness. because there would have to be something to know it. to say 'ahh there is nonexistence, or nothingness!"...it may seem easy to do in a thought experiment, but if you really think about it, when you think about it therer is an observer lookin

imagine when you go to bed later. you know that sleep goes through stages...ie., r.e.ms (rapid eye movments/dreaming)(...and there's also deep dreamless sleep. whilst there there is no 'you' to say 'i am now looking at nothingness. it just is. but also you ARe there, in that it's you that are asleep, and who wake up.......

An alternative indicates choice. And "anything" are components. Thus there are boundaries -- objects that are independent.

However, when I contemplate eternity, my mind keeps penetrating endlessly into darkness because all I encounter is... nothing.

So let's assume in another galaxy far far away there's another android contemplating eternity. His mind would have already swept me aside in blissful ignorance of my existence: I've become nothing!

My initial thoughts in a conversation I was having with a friend a week or so ago..



To this ignorant observer you are 'nothing', but are you nothing independent of his whims? No! As someone said earlier, nothing would be inherently paradoxical. Then again just be cause we can't fathom it doesn't make it nothing per se.. ;)

<br>
duendy: you simply cannot KNOW nothingness, because there would have to be something to know it. To say "ahh there is nonexistence, or nothingness!"...it may seem easy to do in a thought experiment, but if you really think about it, when you think about it therer is an observer lookin

Don't let marginal logic stop you from taking your intergalactic vitamin pills!

But seriously, who said anything about "knowing"? I've been talking about a concept: one is not marginalized when one doesn't "pretend to know"… An exercise in futility, you say? Why not a cryptic exercise that demonstrates effectiveness of presence—and then extends beyond presence?! Academia is no substitute for darkened thoughts, you know. Or just because thought is something, you assume the messenger stifled before nonexistence folds you away into darkness? Mortality is not a pretty concept, is it? Yet… how very related to nothingness it is! It feeds it.

Yet… what if you could visualize nonexistence before nonexistence folds you away! Oh never mind—you're not taking your intergalactic vitamin pills.
<br>

If I said I have nothing in my pockets I'm sure you wouldn't start a philosophical debate..

I have zero oranges today. I have nothing today. Zero is the concept. Twasn't invented by man, now was it?

If I said I have nothing in my pockets I'm sure you wouldn't start a philosophical debate..

I have zero oranges today. I have nothing today. Zero is the concept. Twasn't invented by man, now was it?

No. I'm sure if you said you had nothing in your pockets today, your statement here would end up in the cesspool—I would not have dumped it there: conventional minds would have.

But you're saying I shouldn't explore concepts? Why not? Concerned that I would fall off the edge of the universe?

anroid>v.2...dont put me in a role of 'stifler of imagination'..hehe. that s jest NOT me
want you to explore, and myself
you say mortality is a dreadful thing--or words to that effect. so, you dream of immortality?
also i stick by the 'you cant know nothingness'...i may not be talking my intergalactic pills but i sure nuff takin my reality pills

tell me please how you can know nothingness. if you aren't there you aren't. if you ARE, then you can speak about it. maybe your very actions now, and mine are coming OUT of nothingness. it never went nowhere

duendy: anroid>v.2...dont put me in a role of 'stifler of imagination'..hehe. that s jest NOT meOf course not, Duendy, otherwise you never would've bothered to pick this up. Besides, I've appreciated your approach: it encouraged me to decipher some of my own thoughts. Yet, you did seem to emphasize a certain contraband on knowing "nothingness".

so, you dream of immortality?As a boy I first attempted to imagine what death would be like. I figured one would have to imagine being nowhere -- not unlike nothingness. Furthermore, the whole idea of selflessness seems related -- because one would have to dismiss one's limited self entirely in order to breath in an endless flow of self, no? Hence being nothing special rather than something destructible. But you're right: mortality feels... barbaric, small, and pointless.

tell me please how you can know nothingness.I don't tackle a problem by expecting to know it first, but to explore it first -- there's a difference on how one approaches knowledge: does one approach a problem? Or does one approach a method to knowledge? Similarly, how does one approach "nothing"? Shouldn't one first approach something?

"how does one approach "nothing"? shouldn't one first approach SOMETHING?"

exactly. because they always go togther like twins. cannot be parted

duendy, you're speaking from the vantage point of human knowledge and understanding. Perhaps, yes, in regards to human knowledge and understanding, the two arise together. However, in regards to actuality, reality, that which is, I do not believe that the two arise together. It seems to me that, actually speaking, that there is something, there cannot be nothing, nor can there ever have been nothing.

alright, good, you are talking about ACTUAL REALITY yeah? that is great. so am i. THAt is where its at

now, looking at what we are talking about actually what do we actually know?...well speaking personally that we are using language to communicate. And from what i have learned i am very aware of the limitations of spoken language. it has a history of being trouble for many language-structures.
What has happened is we abstract out. so for example, we are talking about "something" and "nothing"...if i asked you to bring me either a 'nothing' or a 'something' you'd be confused wouldn't you. for 'something' you'd say, "what?" and for 'nothing' you'd say 'what the fuck do you mean, 'bring me nothing'"...right? they are just abstract tags

so what do we mean by nothing then? well say we look at a field with a few trees, and the sky with clouds. i could point to the trees, and the ground, and the sky, with clouds, and what ever is 'something' and try and point out that surrounding all of these somethings is space, which is 'nothing' right? isn't that actual?

usually we ignore the space and focus on the somethings. but without apsace you would even SEE the somethinfgs. and the more clear the space is the more clear are the somethings. they both go togther.

that is actual. if you want to go into space...'up there', we get the same. VAST seeming black space/nothing, with somethings/planets, stars, galaxies etc

if you wanna go introspective, what we have. we have thoughts, feelings, happening withing the sapce of our inner being. in sleep we have busy dreaming interspersed with deep dreamless sleep/nothing

so bring me your fictional nuthin-but-nuthin 'ACTUALLY'.....?

My take on this is that nothing is a concept that people created to
describe states of their environment. For example, "there is nothing
in the glass". Clearly, there would be air, dust, bacteria, x number of
dimensions at the smallest point in the spacial structure within the
glass, etc; however, from a human perspective we can use the word
'nothing' to descibe what's in the glass.

With this said, it may be the case that 'nothing' doesn't exist in
any form but a label that people devised.

Actually, duendy, space isn't 'nothing.' Space appears to be nothing, but we know that space is actually filled with stuff, simply too small to see with the naked eye. As has already been stated on this thread, a vaccuum isn't nothing. So, your logic of nothing arising with something in actuality is flawed in this regard. As far as the introspection goes, just because someone dreams, and then doesn't... doesn't mean that there is "nothing" when that person isn't dreaming. That is a presumption. You're applying an abstract concept to other abstracts: thought.... emotion. Thoughts and emotions don't have place, therefore there is nowhere that you can point to say that there is a lacking of emotion or thought, and in fact there is no place that you can point to say that there is actually emotion or thought. Abstracts don't have place, and therefore the concept of something doesn't have the normal implication of "thing" that would regularly be had. Ergo, to say that there is nothing where there is often something in regards to emotion or thought is very much different than speaking about things or no things within the space-time construct.

In this universe, isn't it impossible to have nothing, due to the presence of space/time that exists everywhere? Correct me if my presumption is wrong(or if this has already come up) but space/time is what you would call a 'something', is it not?

originally posted by fadingCaptain
Assumption:
"nothing" is non-existance.

Therefore:
"nothing" cannot exist.

Therefore:
something exists.

There is a proof on why something exists.

This is invalid logic. In this syllogism, you have a negative premise, but no negative in the conclusion. To have a valid argument, you must have a negative conclusion to agree with the negative premise. One may not logically describe something by describing what it is not.

-or-

you have two negative premises, which is also invalid logic

-or-

you create an existential fallacy by attempting to logically describe something that does not exist.

Matter+antimatter=0, but that however does not equal no-thing, since we're still acknowledging that nothing exists, since we have given it value (0).

The only nothing is ignorance; when something is undescribed and unobserved, it does not exist. A naive universe does not exist, since it cannot recognize itself.
Nothing could never be found or described, since it would be such an antithesis to how we function (or possibly a very powerful 'non'), that it would fail to be nothing as soon as we saw it.

here is what i think of nothing

"nothing"

nothing is nothing?


"nothing?"


nothing is nothing


what is nothing? aha!!!!!! eurika!!!!!!

you think nothing is eurika? aha!!!!!!!!

eurika nothing you say!!!!!
youre crazy i say!!!!!!!!!!! aha not convince?
you want the contact details of my doctor? aha no you say!!!!
i want nothing you say!!!!aha!!!!!
here take nothing i say---> aha!!!!!!!!!!!smart move!!!!!!
cause the doctor would have given pills not nothing!!!!! aha...blahbloom blah

Philocrazy:

May I recommend these two informational comics?
The setting may be irrelevant, but the message holds true.
Be sure to read the parts about exclamation marks.
here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-10-11&res=l
)
and here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-11-03&res=l
)

Anyone have a legit answer for this? No "just because". And I remind you, if it's explainable, it doesn't answer the question.

Jesus Walks,
Patriot

Jesus is dead.

I would submit that something and nothing two parts of the whole.

Maybe at some point there was nothing, now there's something. Perhaps it's because both are probable.

I suppose we have to ask, what's beyond the universe? Would you call it "nothing" or something? What if it's nothing that will become something? How can the universe expand into nothing? Perhaps it's transition, nothing to something and something to nothing (as in infinite universal expansion - e.g., the "big freeze").

M-theory surmises that the universe is the result of a collision of 5D branes in 11 dimensions. With that in mind, there is something more than the nothing of before our universe, and more universes to come. So something and nothing just depend on your perspective eh?

Okay if there are 11 dimensions, why that particular something?

Simply put: because it's possible. If something is possible and you wait long enough it will happen.

Of course, that's pretty conventional thinking considering that the idea of time itself is tied to the collision (the arrow of time is set by the collision). I suppose that brings me to the final point: The idea of "something and nothing" probably don't really make sense on the grand scale of things, just as time itself doesn't make sense in the way we typically think of it.

roman:
Matter+antimatter=0, but that however does not equal no-thing, since we're still acknowledging that nothing exists, since we have given it value (0).
-------------------------------------------------------
value of zero exists
buuuuuuuuuttttttttttttttt
what is, it represents
no units
no value
no thing
zero (0) is a symmmmmmmbolllllll
two (2) is a symbol that represents units
etc
i quit i have no time to teach maths here
you talk of a system, you yourself dont understand fully, whereas i have known of it just the instant you mentioned it thanks roman!!!!!

hehe

value of 0,you talk of codes you silly nerd that actually represent something
in machines and now thanks to you also in the universe

hey roman
find nothing
good luck!!!!!!

Originally posted by [/b]wesmorris[/b]
Simply put: because it's possible. If something is possible and you wait long enough it will happen.

Nothing happening is also probable. Would nothing eventually happen, or does nothing occur at every instance that something does not happen?

Zero can have units. If you are in a car, and you come to a stop, you are not going '0,' you are goin 0 miles per hour. Mph are in fact units.

Zero has units all the time.

Me having no time for crazies still has units, which are time units, that I have none of.

Nothing happening is also probable. Would nothing eventually happen, or does nothing occur at every instance that something does not happen?

Well, technically right now in our universe, very very very slowly from our perspective, something is becoming nothing (the big freeze). Right? As the universe continues to expand, it approaches absolute zero.

Then again like I said, I don't think that the concept makes much sense on the grand scale of things. Something and nothing both imply perspective. The tao has no perspective. It's just what is.

So take away perspective (like us discussing the matter), and the concepts lose all validity. There's just 'is', even if 'is', isn't. ;)

So existence is simply a symptom of observation?

So existence is simply a symptom of observation?

No, but without observation, it doesn't make much difference, because there is nothing to place value on differences.

As close to non-existance as I can imagine, 10 billion years back before the big bang. Imagine the moment previous this as non-existance. I really liked an earlier idea in this forum of 'lack of movement being non-existance'. Before the big bang, let us suppose there was no movement. Two proofs I can think of which suggest the necessity of existance and non-existance. Hegel's thesis (non-existance), anti thesis (existance) and synthesis(infinity/eternity?). Neils bohr once said there are trivial truths and great truths. The great truths have contradictions. Something and nothing are great truths, just because they are complete contradictions, does not mean they cannot exist simultaneosly. Time is just an illusion whereby existance and non existance seem to be separate. Time only describes the relative movement between moving objects. It does not really exist. When movement ends so does time. So does existance. Existance and non-existance both exist constantly but seem seperate from each other through the illusion of time.

As close to non-existance as I can imagine, 10 billion years back before the big bang. Imagine the moment previous this as non-existance. I really liked an earlier idea in this forum of 'lack of movement being non-existance'. Before the big bang, let us suppose there was no movement. Two proofs I can think of which suggest the necessity of existance and non-existance. Hegel's thesis (non-existance), anti thesis (existance) and synthesis(infinity/eternity?). Neils bohr once said there are trivial truths and great truths. The great truths have contradictions. Something and nothing are great truths, just because they are complete contradictions, does not mean they cannot exist simultaneosly. Time is just an illusion whereby existance and non existance seem to be separate. Time only describes the relative movement between moving objects. It does not really exist. When movement ends so does time. So does existance. Existance and non-existance both exist constantly but seem seperate from each other through the illusion of time.

Right before the 'Big Bang' (which is a rapid inflation... not an explosion)
we had a maximally deflated brane (this is 'something' and not 'nothing').
Similarly there is a ton of stuff outside the brane (more 'something' and
not 'nothing'). What reality seems to be suggesting is that 'nothing' doesn't
exist.

I really liked an earlier idea in this forum of 'lack of movement being non-existance'. Before the big bang, let us suppose there was no movement.
No movement of what? The universe? A non-moving universe is still something. When nothing moves we get something? And this nothing is moving in respect to what exactly more nothing :D

the fact is, that something exists, occupying time and space.
The question itself is the proof.

Why does the existing stuff exist? Because its causes existed in the past. And this was true at any point, while anything existed.

Has ever existed a point, such that nothing existed? NO, that would be a self-contradiction.

So, the nothing can not be !

e :D s

If nothing never exists, does that mean that everything always exists?

Without motion, there's no universe. Nothing. Motion of what? Motion of nothing, in fact, since mind doesn't really move. It is always here and now. But it believes it moves, projected into the future to reach its goal of absolute peace (Nothingness), and restrained by a memory which it doesn't want to lose (universe). All energetic motions in the universe are only psychological ones.

Maybe Void = Fullness.

If nothing never exists, does that mean that everything always exists?
Can everything be nothing?
Not as we exist, certainly no!
Could everything be nothing?
It would be unknowlable, as the nothing has no knowlege.

There is nothing to know about nothing!
And it is good to know.

e :D s

To answer the original question:

It's because of your mom Beavis.

Maybe Void = Fullness.

Or perhaps void and fullness are two necessary parts of the same concept.

Perhaps there should be rules as to the formation of proper concepts. One being that we should not forumulate concepts like "war" outside the context of the continuum of peace and war, which should itself have a name and be the focus of comprehension. Fundamental conceptual building blocks?

Perhaps it's that these concepts respresenting the two extremes are the building blocks like those in DNA that must go together in only the way that nature allows in order to function. People can however in reality, allow these blocks to be put together in ways that skew perspective, stacking the deck in favor of their apparently unwitting presumption.

So like the blocks of DNA have 64 words with which to express genetic instruction, perhaps there could be identified a set of conceptual "words" (or classesl thereof), representative of "potentially coherent thought" or "requisite for conveying meaning".

Just passing thoughts. Off-kilter I know, but perhaps a thread of value in that line of thinking.

the same concept..
A group of consepts of nothing depend on what the corresponding concept of thing is.

These are different concepts than nothing as noanything

Think of nothing as an idea

e :D s

Or perhaps void and fullness are two necessary parts of the same concept.

Perhaps there should be rules as to the formation of proper concepts. One being that we should not forumulate concepts like "war" outside the context of the continuum of peace and war, which should itself have a name and be the focus of comprehension. Fundamental conceptual building blocks?

Perhaps it's that these concepts respresenting the two extremes are the building blocks like those in DNA that must go together in only the way that nature allows in order to function. People can however in reality, allow these blocks to be put together in ways that skew perspective, stacking the deck in favor of their apparently unwitting presumption.

So like the blocks of DNA have 64 words with which to express genetic instruction, perhaps there could be identified a set of conceptual "words" (or classesl thereof), representative of "potentially coherent thought" or "requisite for conveying meaning".

Just passing thoughts. Off-kilter I know, but perhaps a thread of value in that line of thinking.


I guess what I meant was that SOMETHING is SHAPED NOTHINGNESS.

Now, to your idea of building block concepts. I have developed such a list. It is more than 250 of what appear to be opposite-pairs such as "high-low." These are to be taken as single units called "differelations." But there is a hierarchy to them because some of them are needed for others to exist. For example, for there to be high-low, there must be an up-down or a more-less (depending on context). In order for there to be an up-down, there has to be push-pull. Etc. It all appears to boil down to a few "irreducible" differelations (same-different, relation-isolation among them). I'm still mapping them out.

Or perhaps void and fullness are two necessary parts of the same concept.

Perhaps there should be rules as to the formation of proper concepts. One being that we should not forumulate concepts like "war" outside the context of the continuum of peace and war, which should itself have a name and be the focus of comprehension. Fundamental conceptual building blocks?

Perhaps it's that these concepts respresenting the two extremes are the building blocks like those in DNA that must go together in only the way that nature allows in order to function. People can however in reality, allow these blocks to be put together in ways that skew perspective, stacking the deck in favor of their apparently unwitting presumption.

So like the blocks of DNA have 64 words with which to express genetic instruction, perhaps there could be identified a set of conceptual "words" (or classesl thereof), representative of "potentially coherent thought" or "requisite for conveying meaning".

Just passing thoughts. Off-kilter I know, but perhaps a thread of value in that line of thinking.

A brilliant point, always to be kept in mind.

Excellent.

It all goes to the systemic understanding of meaning and how an element has its meaning only through its position and relations to other elements of a system.

It is possible, however, to shift elements around -- but in this, their meaning will become skewed, or even lost.


Secondly, there are several principles by which concepts are organized in our cognition, the most frequent ones are:

1. grouping by similarity (similarity of substance, form, color, ...),

2. grouping by economy (we only have as many categories as needed; eg. we don't have 20 kinds of snow as such a distinction isn't necessary here),

3. grouping by hierarchy (animal>dog>German Sheperd),

4. grouping by the minimax principle (to use a level of abstraction on which we can achieve encompassing the most information using as little cognitive effort as possible).

The universe exsists because it is its own justification for exsisting.

In regards to itself it is real.

The universe exsists because it is its own justification for exsisting.
justification? Universe does not need justification, and does not consider any reasons. It does not have any external cause either, only internal casuality.

In regards to itself it is real. In regards? to itself? - this means nothing to me.

e :) s

I've been thinking a lot about this kind of thing lately, but it's difficult to explain my thoughts.

I ponder: For each established dichotomy, does each state exist without the other to complement it?

Should we not name the dichotomy itself, and then discuss its extremes in terms of the dichotomy, rather that just a discussion of preference regarding either extreme?

Without something, the concept of nothingness cannot be.

(didn't realize I'd posted something similar above, pardon)

I guess what I meant was that SOMETHING is SHAPED NOTHINGNESS.

Now, to your idea of building block concepts. I have developed such a list. It is more than 250 of what appear to be opposite-pairs such as "high-low." These are to be taken as single units called "differelations." But there is a hierarchy to them because some of them are needed for others to exist. For example, for there to be high-low, there must be an up-down or a more-less (depending on context). In order for there to be an up-down, there has to be push-pull. Etc. It all appears to boil down to a few "irreducible" differelations (same-different, relation-isolation among them). I'm still mapping them out.

Please start a thread with this list and your thoughts on the matter, then post a link here. I'm interested.

Nothing is infinite something and negative infinite something...everything exists because somewhere along this equation there came to be a distance greater than zero between the two.

- KitNyx

It is so simple.
There is something rather than nothing because if there were just nothing there would be nothing there to see the something missing.

The fact that something is, makes the appreciation of that something possible and the relation of something to nothing happens by that something comparing the two.

Something is a relationship of what is to what is not, and this can only happen if there is something there to relate.

The existence of the universe and our preception of it are the same thing. Without something being percieved or experienced, to say that it exists is meaningless. Our preception is the something. Why we are perceiving it and ourselves....we'll never know.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that when I die and my act of percieving stops, you will all cease to exist.

If I did not know better I’d say you’re heads are full of nothing—but that’s a contradiction; how can anything be full of nothing? Ans: No thing can be full of nothing.

But most of you are correct nothing can not exist for if it did than we could not exist to know it. It is sort-ta like “does a tree make a noise when it falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it? Ans: Sure it does and so that is something and there has never been nothing.

It is not completely a word game but then again our (English) language is a bit weird at times when you can ‘reason’ that we have (sort-ta) a word that means more than nothing! Think about that for a minute (“more than nothing” Hmmmmm)!! When we say “oblivion” is that not a word that conjures up a place of more nothingness than just the normal nothing?

Some one (in the thread) wrote that; “God wants to butt in here” (more like His Holy Spirit) and I think rightfully so. There never has been nothing at least not in the spiritual manner (and whether you like it or not and whether you believe it or not) you are spiritual FIRST and physical (body) SECOND. When you look at someone you should be concerned for their spirit first (and your OWN spirit too) and the world has it backwards—it says satisfy the desires of the body and eat up all your time in life with worldly things which will leave ‘no time’ left for the spiritual). Who has ‘no time’? Ans: no one who is living has no time…we all have some time (but we do not know how much). It is when you die that you have no time which means you have eternity. Does time stop when you die? Ans: nope! So when you die your body runs out of time but your spirit is set free to exist outside of time…just like God.

God is first! And if you remember in the Bible it mentions that the “spirit of God hovered over the void and the dark…” (it’s something like that in Genesis). Well, let me ask you what DEFINES a VOID? Is a void nothing? Is an empty box filled with nothing? Is an empty garage really empty (and who of us has such a thing anyway?)? Now I know you’re all going to say “No, there is oxygen and nitrogen and dust floating around in the ‘void’ that makes up the garage” But that is not what I’m asking…!

I asked; what “defines” that void of the box (or garage)?

Ans: The sides of the box and the walls of the garage…define the void that is the box or garage! Take down the sides of an empty box and the void that was the box disappears. So what IS the void of the universe defined by? And you can bet that it can not be nothing or that once the ‘walls’ of it are identified the void then certainly becomes an ‘area’ that can be filled up. Now nothing (oops, can’t use that word ha ha ha) can be identified because once it is…then it ceases to be nothing and becomes something but we will try and stay away from the word games even though it is not a bad answer cause if one can not define it then why should it exist?

I had someone say that outerspace was where nothing is (oops a ‘nothing’ can not be an ‘is’) but then I asked him “do you believe that light is something” His reply was “Yes” to which I asked how long does light take to travel to us from the sun? He replied “8 to 9 minutes”. Then how can something (light) travel though nothing (space) and take 8 to 9 minutes to do it? If it traveled though nothing it would be here instantly!

The term nothing is a ploy of Satan! He wants us to dwell on it and occupy our time keeping us focused on the nothing of himself and the worlds ways (in a spiritual manner) and away from the something which is of God and Heaven. Think about it: there is a place that comes close to being ‘nothing’ (and it is my ponderings only) that this place is Hell. For Hell has to be a place where that which is of God and everything God made…is not. The Bible mentions fire and gnashing of teeth….OK. but I am confident that it is a place where those who reject Gods rescue plan in Christ will be ‘rejected’ to on their on choice and that they will then be ALONE in the VOID with nothing more than a screaming conscience for all eternity. You don’t put darkness into a room you take light out; you do not put cold into a room…you take heat out; and you do not put evil into a world, you allow yourself to take God out of it. God will not force Himself on us…that would be a ‘freewill’ (violation) and a raping of true love choice.

That brings up another issue with ‘nothing’…time! God exists outside of time and space and matter (He can not be restricted by His own creation…except by His own choice to invade it as was/is such with Jesus). When we are born we are given time (and we do not know how much) when we die we pass through death’s door and exist in spirit outside of time. When you have so much time (like when you’re young) time seems to mean nothing to you…it goes so slow…and you can’t wait for it to hurry up…when you’re older and you realize you’re running out of time you want it to slow down as it seems to run faster…and we become more careful to preserve our life. The world is backwards.

Now if you want to get into the science and talk about dark matter and an expanding universe then that is fine but it does not make the issue go away nor does it answer the ultimate questions: Why are you, you…and not me? What is your purpose for being alive? Where did you come from and where are you going? You’ll find that NOT much in this life satisfies (ultimately) until you dance with these big questions FIRST and then the rest of the ‘world’ comes second. God first in all things (In Christ Alone) and it is interesting that when done as such that the ‘science’ builds your faith and trust and love for God.

I don’t want to pump the Bible in anyone’s face but you’ve got to admit that we (humans) are weird to the planet – we are aliens to this place (and I do not mean like: little-green-men) but that we do NOT fit into the scope of all other living creatures. We are very different! Dial up “The Privileged Planet” and watch the DVD.

Life is temporary, it is a test, it is done in trust and it is not about you…or me…but rather God and His creation (of which you were made very special—you are NOT a trousered ape!). You have a curiosity that is insatiable and it will stay that way unless you seek God and allow His spirit to woe you to ultimate understanding.

God always was (“I AM”) and as such nothing does not exist (and never will) and is further ‘nothing’ more than a poison pushed into the tainted creation we have chosen to become (and from which God had to rescue us from). And you need to KNOW this!!

So do you think that the universe is infinite or finite and why? and further can you prove to me (why or why not) that of all the billions upon billions of stars out there (upon which has to be billions of planets for each star) that there is or is not other intelligent life LIKE us???

GT

Anyone have a legit answer for this? No "just because". And I remind you, if it's explainable, it doesn't answer the question.

Jesus Walks,
PatriotBecause there's someone there to wonder.

"I think therefore I am is am" is an obvious statement.

We do exist, at least I do.

But the question is why?

I like the theory on existence as movement. But what does this say about light? Why can light only travel the speed of light. What makes light so special?

Anyone have a legit answer for this? No "just because". And I remind you, if it's explainable, it doesn't answer the question.

Jesus Walks,
Patriot

there are a few one line answers that people may give you - the most prudent of which is -

how can u know anything exists?

or that

- the point of nothing is to aspire to become something (this one is a mediocre one)