Nothing is Impossible

[Cyperium]

This statement obviously has two meanings, first 'nothing' as itself is impossible as there can be no nothing (only a void of something or lack of something) and second 'nothing is impossible' as in 'everything is possible'.

What is the opposite of nothing? Cause if nothing is impossible, is then everything possible?

I said to a friend once that 'everything exists, because nothing can't exist', he had thought about it and a couple of days later he said that he thought I was correct. This only implies that one person besides me understood what I meant, it doesn't mean that it has to be true for that reason - only that my confidence of it rose.

Then comes about the question of everything, what is it, and what does it hold?

Everything may be the whole universe (as if it was everything) or configurations of objects, such that every shape of object is possible. Everything might also be everything unseen, and deemed to us as impossible.

Everything is possible, but in what 'mode'? Everything is possible as a fantasy, or a concept, or an abstract idea?

What does nothing hold? Nothing. How much does nothing stretch? Nothing. In order for everything to hold its place, it has to be everything that nothing is not. There has to be a full replacement.

So where is the limit to that replacement? And why would there be any limit?

Or is it plainly so that every abstract idea is possible as an abstract idea, and that every fantasy is possible as a fantasy, etc. that everything is ordered according to its character?

Or is it so, that everything that can be thought of has an existence? Maybe even things that can't be thought of?

[Thinka]

What is the opposite of nothing? Cause if nothing is impossible, is then everything possible?

I said to a friend once that 'everything exists, because nothing can't exist', he had thought about it and a couple of days later he said that he thought I was correct.

I think that the opposite of nothing is something, not everything. Also, I do think that nothing can exist. For example, you can have 'nothing' (a null value) in a database, and it is a valid state.

Because I don't agree with your premise that the opposite of nothing is everything, I also don't agree that everything is possible. Rather, something is possible.

But, in general, I think the answer depends on whether you are a determinist or not. If you believe that time is just another dimension where things are already pre-programmed, then you probably wouldn't say that everything is possible because there's already a finite set of possibilities. But if you are not a determinist, then sure, why not? Things may not be possible today, but they could be possible in the future.

Also, I think it is a question of probabilities--there is nothing in this world with a 0 likelihood even if the event has a 0 probability; therefore, everything is possible.

[Cyperium]

I think that the opposite of nothing is something, not everything. Also, I do think that nothing can exist. For example, you can have 'nothing' (a null value) in a database, and it is a valid state.

Yes, but that is only a void of something, a lack of a value. It is not nothing itself, as nothing itself can't exist.

Because I don't agree with your premise that the opposite of nothing is everything, I also don't agree that everything is possible. Rather, something is possible.

I think it depends on what perspective you look at it from. If you think of a place and that something can be in that place, but that nothing is in that place right now. Then you are correct, something is opposite of nothing.

But if you think that nothing at all existed, then it wasn't just something that started to exist, it was everything. It is at that perspective that the opposite of nothing is everything. Cause if not everything started to exist, then there would still be some nothing left (which is impossible).

But, in general, I think the answer depends on whether you are a determinist or not. If you believe that time is just another dimension where things are already pre-programmed, then you probably wouldn't say that everything is possible because there's already a finite set of possibilities. But if you are not a determinist, then sure, why not? Things may not be possible today, but they could be possible in the future.

Also, I think it is a question of probabilities--there is nothing in this world with a 0 likelihood even if the event has a 0 probability; therefore, everything is possible.

Yes, this might be a question of probabilities. Nothing is impossible, BUT might have a very low probability (essentially zero).

[Enmos]

I think that the opposite of nothing is something, not everything.

Doesn't something imply everything ?

[Thinka]

Doesn't something imply everything ?

Why would it? Something is a subset of everything.

[Enmos]

Why would it? Something is a subset of everything.

Exactly

[Thinka]

Exactly

But this doesn't mean that nothing is not a subset of everything. The universe, in set theory, can be comprised of different types of objects. Even if we assume that the notion nothing exists outside of the universal set and is therefore part of the null set (universal set's complement), the fact that we have a complement means that there is something in that null set that is not accounted for in the universal set. Therefore, even if we say that the universal set contains all possibilities, there could still be more possibilities beyond the universal set, and one of these possibilities could be that something, a certain part of everything that the universal set says is possible, is in fact impossible. So, either way, there is always something beyond what we think is possible or impossible, so not everything can be possible.

[Enmos]

But this doesn't mean that nothing is not a subset of everything. The universe, in set theory, can be comprised of different types of objects. Even if we assume that the notion nothing exists outside of the universal set and is therefore part of the null set (universal set's complement), the fact that we have a complement means that there is something in that null set that is not accounted for in the universal set. Therefore, even if we say that the universal set contains all possibilities, there could still be more possibilities beyond the universal set, and one of these possibilities could be that something, a certain part of everything that the universal set says is possible, is in fact impossible. So, either way, there is always something beyond what we think is possible or impossible,...

I never said anything about that, but since you bring it up.. nothing would not be in the universal set by definition.

...so not everything can be possible.

No, 'not everything', as you put it, is not possible. The universe is defined as 'everything that exists anywhere'.

[Thinka]

I never said anything about that, but since you bring it up.. nothing would not be in the universal set by definition.


No, 'not everything', as you put it, is not possible. The universe is defined as 'everything that exists anywhere'.

But if in the null set we have 'everything that does not exist anywhere', does this mean that it could not exist at some point in the future? Also, if the concept of a possibility itself is a subset of the universal set (since possibility is something that does exist), then wouldn't we encounter a situation where there is a possibility of nothing? That is, not all possibilities would get realized? I guess the fact that everything is possible doesn't mean that everything will happen.

[PipTweedle]

Unless everything is everything, nothing exists.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

1 thing is impossible.

[Algernon]

This also seems to be just as much a play on words as much as it is a philosophical question.

Either it is just stating that it is impossible for nothing to exist because there is existence thus disproving the state of nothingness, then maybe that is not possible.

Otherwise, if it is stating that nothing that we can think of is impossible, that would also have to be defined and bounded by a set of guidelines and rules before we can state whether it can be possible or not. To be impossible something has to have the probability of 0.0%, anything close to that can still be reasonably called near impossible. Possibility is more of a reference to probability, as a figure of speech, and not really meant as a measure of the probability of things occurring in time frames from which we are not able to grasp.

Even though somebody may say that something is impossible but then a billion years later it occured, doesn't necessarily detract from that statement's credibility.
To call something impossible; that already in itself has been placed under a relative context and timeline, since it seems only humans or languages that have conceived the idea of impossibility would be able to comprehend its application in specific situations.

And to add to the play of words, Impossibility is impossible.

[Twine]

Cyperium: You're using a lot of play on words.

Why is it impossible for there to be nothing? Of course, the situation doesn't exist in certain grammatical setups, but why can there never be a situation in which there is nothing? In words, I guess you could say that "nothingness" wouldn't "exist", but then again nothing else would exist. "Exist", or "Not exist", to use the Law of the Excluded Middle, rather than "Exist something" or "Exist nothing".

What does nothing hold? Nothing. How much does nothing stretch? Nothing. In order for everything to hold its place, it has to be everything that nothing is not. There has to be a full replacement.

You're using a concrete version of "nothing". Nothing isn't a thing, it's the absence of a thing. There is "Something" and "Not something" (which is really nothing).

There is no way to prove something is impossible, and I guess in that way you could say that it is possible for everything to be possible, and hence everything is possible. But really, the probability of most events is so minuscule that there is no reason to acknowledge their possibility. Question: On a macro scale, is everything possible, or do large amounts of things *have to* obey physical laws collectively? Is there some way for, as an example, some large amount of radioactive substance to last longer than would be indicated by its half-life? I guess even then you could argue philosophically that "it is possible for everything to be possible, and hence everything is possible", but are there any physical perspectives on this?

[Cyperium]

Cyperium: You're using a lot of play on words.

Why is it impossible for there to be nothing? Of course, the situation doesn't exist in certain grammatical setups, but why can there never be a situation in which there is nothing? In words, I guess you could say that "nothingness" wouldn't "exist", but then again nothing else would exist. "Exist", or "Not exist", to use the Law of the Excluded Middle, rather than "Exist something" or "Exist nothing".

Something else must always exist instead of nothing. If something exists at all then there can't be no *nothing*. For instance. Before the universe, there couldn't exist a cookie, and that cookie would be all that exists, and around that cookie would be *nothing*, that is a impossible scenario, since there has to be a full replacement. The cookie would be the universe, and there would be no limit to it, since that implies that *nothing* is beyond that limit.

As soon as something started to exist, everything else must exist also.

You're using a concrete version of "nothing". Nothing isn't a thing, it's the absence of a thing. There is "Something" and "Not something" (which is really nothing).

Yes, and if the "Something" is the whole universe or the whole existence, then in "Not something" *nothing* prevails, which is impossible.

That's why the concrete version of "nothing" is impossible, as there can't be a concrete version of it.

The other side of *nothing*, like there is nothing in the room. Is always specialized to mean that there is *nothing* of a certain thing, or certain things in that room. Cause the room always has something in it.

There is no way to prove something is impossible, and I guess in that way you could say that it is possible for everything to be possible, and hence everything is possible. But really, the probability of most events is so minuscule that there is no reason to acknowledge their possibility. Question: On a macro scale, is everything possible, or do large amounts of things *have to* obey physical laws collectively?

There's no immediate reason why they have to obey the physical laws (at least not to us), they just always have, and that's pretty much what we know.

Is there some way for, as an example, some large amount of radioactive substance to last longer than would be indicated by its half-life? I guess even then you could argue philosophically that "it is possible for everything to be possible, and hence everything is possible", but are there any physical perspectives on this?

One physical perspective is that of the fine-tuning of the laws. It seems that the laws are surprisingly finely tuned in the perspective of the existence of us - or carbon-based life.

This may be because we wouldn't see the finely tuned laws, if they weren't so finely tuned (anthropic principle). It still begs the question as to why they are so finely tuned in the first place though.

[Twine]

Yes, and if the "Something" is the whole universe or the whole existence, then in "Not something" *nothing* prevails, which is impossible.

That's why the concrete version of "nothing" is impossible, as there can't be a concrete version of it.

That argument is still flawed. It is not true that either "something" exists or an impossible object "nothing" exists (Just because "something" does not exist does not imply that an impossible object, "nothing", does exist). Therefore, you cannot say that just because this impossible object, "nothing", cannot exist that "something" must exist.

"Not exist object(something)" does not mean "Exist object(nothing)". The word nothing is a flaw in the English language, it is not an object itself. "Not exist object(something)" does not imply anything else. Actually, that's exactly it. There is nothing else to imply.

Of course, the question of whether something exists can only be asked if something exists, so the answer to the question "Does something exist" is necessarily "yes". However, this does not mean that the lack of everything is impossible, that it may never happen or has never happened (though I don't know if you can say that a state where not a single thing exists "happens").

Something else must always exist instead of nothing. If something exists at all then there can't be no *nothing*. For instance. Before the universe, there couldn't exist a cookie, and that cookie would be all that exists, and around that cookie would be *nothing*, that is a impossible scenario, since there has to be a full replacement. The cookie would be the universe, and there would be no limit to it, since that implies that *nothing* is beyond that limit.

As soon as something started to exist, everything else must exist also.

Ah, once again, this is flawed based on an impossible, objective definition of "nothing" and the assumption that the nonexistance of "something" implies the existance of this impossible object, "nothing".

The cookie could exist by itself, without having anything around it. It isn't that "nothing" would exist around the cookie, it's just that there is not any thing that exists around it.

Actually, the currently accepted theory of the big bang would imply that the universe actually does have a definite limit, and does not go on infinitely in all directions - There would not be anything that exists any further than light could have travelled in the time since the Big Bang.

With certain definitions of "nothing", it is impossible for "nothing" to exist (because that is a property of nothing). It's just begging the question. But this does not mean that "something" must exist in place of "nothing". To say that there must be one of the two there is to assume that something exists, which is once again begging the question.

It is indeed possible for not a single thing to exist, and you haven't said anything that would show otherwise.

[Cyperium]

That argument is still flawed. It is not true that either "something" exists or an impossible object "nothing" exists (Just because "something" does not exist does not imply that an impossible object, "nothing", does exist). Therefore, you cannot say that just because this impossible object, "nothing", cannot exist that "something" must exist.

"Not exist object(something)" does not mean "Exist object(nothing)". The word nothing is a flaw in the English language, it is not an object itself. "Not exist object(something)" does not imply anything else. Actually, that's exactly it. There is nothing else to imply.

Of course, the question of whether something exists can only be asked if something exists, so the answer to the question "Does something exist" is necessarily "yes". However, this does not mean that the lack of everything is impossible, that it may never happen or has never happened (though I don't know if you can say that a state where not a single thing exists "happens").
Ah, once again, this is flawed based on an impossible, objective definition of "nothing" and the assumption that the nonexistance of "something" implies the existance of this impossible object, "nothing".

The cookie could exist by itself, without having anything around it. It isn't that "nothing" would exist around the cookie, it's just that there is not any thing that exists around it.

Actually, the currently accepted theory of the big bang would imply that the universe actually does have a definite limit, and does not go on infinitely in all directions - There would not be anything that exists any further than light could have travelled in the time since the Big Bang.

With certain definitions of "nothing", it is impossible for "nothing" to exist (because that is a property of nothing). It's just begging the question. But this does not mean that "something" must exist in place of "nothing". To say that there must be one of the two there is to assume that something exists, which is once again begging the question.

It is indeed possible for not a single thing to exist, and you haven't said anything that would show otherwise.

It is of course a play of words. The existence is always of "something/anything/everything" So to say that "nothing exists" is the same as saying that "everything doesn't exist".

As such there is nothing to say that just because nothing exists, everything must exist.

However, that was more of a sidenote of an idea I had, the reason for this thread is rather that when something indeed starts to exists, where there was nothing before, like before the universe, then that must encompass nothing completely. Cause otherwise and mark my word, there would be an object called "nothing" hanging about.

Cause when we talk about the universe we talk about spacetime being created at the big bang, as such there isn't space or time before it. The outside of the boundary isn't just simply "nothing" cause that would objectify it.

It could be allowed though, only if it was for sure that no observers could see it. Cause seeing it would then require a even higher dimension, but then that dimension would cover the nothing that was before anyway. So we could never see it.

[stateofmind]

Any thing is possible but it's all the same. If one thing changes everything else must follow suit.

Pigs can fly but that form of an animal must be completely and perfectly necessary for its survival (a mirror of its environment.)

[Cyperium]

Any thing is possible but it's all the same. If one thing changes everything else must follow suit.

Pigs can fly but that form of an animal must be completely and perfectly necessary for its survival (a mirror of its environment.)

Yes, I see what you are saying. I have thought in those lines too.