Nothing from Something?

[Enmos]

I haven't read the whole thread, just the first and last 3 pages, but is it basically someone repeating the same 4 phrases while others tell them the flaws inherent in those 4 phrases?

Yes, you got it.. lol

 

[John J. Bannan]

What if I swap them without you looking ? (like someone else already said)

To be truly distinguishable they have to have a unique label (property), but they don't.

No, to be distinguishable, they only need to be separate by an addition sign.

 

[draqon]

ok I got it...this thread needs to be moved to pseudoscience.

 

[John J. Bannan]

...but you just said matter is nothingness. What does it matter if empty space (nothing) is surrounded by matter.

Screw it, this is getting beyond ridiculous. I completely give up.

That's my point, Why would it matter if empty space is surrounded by matter. You're the one trying to create energy from nothing by surrounding empty space with matter. What I am saying is I don't think that will work. Nor, must it work where matter is made from multiple nothingnesses.

 

[John J. Bannan]

I haven't read the whole thread, just the first and last 3 pages, but is it basically someone repeating the same 4 phrases while others tell them the flaws inherent in those 4 phrases?

Correction. While others fail to establish flaws in those phrases.

 

[Oniw17]

Correction. While others fail to establish flaws in those phrases.

It's all the same to me; it means this thread accomplishes nothing for anyone.

 

[John J. Bannan]

It's all the same to me; it means this thread accomplishes nothing for anyone.

What a poor view on things. Understanding each other does not have to mean agreeing with each other.

 

[draqon]

 

[BenTheMan]

This has gone on for WAY too long.

 

[draqon]

This has gone on for WAY too long.

how do you like my graphical representation to sum it all up?

 

[John J. Bannan]

how do you like my graphical representation to sum it all up?

Funny, in a stupid sort of way.

 

[draqon]

Funny, in a stupid sort of way.

it got the job done, Cesspooled the trash.

 

[Myles]

Certainly existence itself is a quality or attribute. If zero is nothing, than a property of zero would be that it can exist side by side with another zero.

You are wrong. To say something exists is not to attribute a property to it.

Imagine a perfect zero, whatever that may be and mentally or physically make a list of its properties. Now if you find that such a zero ( object) exists, its properties remaij as they were before you discovewred it.

You have clouded the original issue by talking about zero in a spatio-temporal relationship with another symbol zero. Its position at any given time is a property; its existence is not.

Think about this and, if you cannot see the truth of my statement, accept that the subtleties of philosophy are beyond you at present. Alternatively, immerse yourself in Kant's " Critique of Pure Reason", having done the necessary background work to enable you to understand what he is saying!

 

[Pandaemoni]

On the plus side, if my perpetually broke brother meets a girl whose perpetually broke, apparently their two $0 net worths may combine to create lots of money, so sayeth the math of John J. Bannon.

 

[draqon]

On the plus side, if my perpetually broke brother meets a girl whose perpetually broke, apparently their two $0 net worths may combine to create lots of money, so sayeth the math of John J. Bannon.

thats because behind those zeroes are substantial figures.

 

[Myles]

On the plus side, if my perpetually broke brother meets a girl whose perpetually broke, apparently their two $0 net worths may combine to create lots of money, so sayeth the math of John J. Bannon.

A bit like Bonnie and Clyde ?

 

[John J. Bannan]

You are wrong. To say something exists is not to attribute a property to it.

Imagine a perfect zero, whatever that may be and mentally or physically make a list of its properties. Now if you find that such a zero ( object) exists, its properties remaij as they were before you discovewred it.

You have clouded the original issue by talking about zero in a spatio-temporal relationship with another symbol zero. Its position at any given time is a property; its existence is not.

Think about this and, if you cannot see the truth of my statement, accept that the subtleties of philosophy are beyond you at present. Alternatively, immerse yourself in Kant's " Critique of Pure Reason", having done the necessary background work to enable you to understand what he is saying!

You are confusing the concepts of nothingness and multiple nothingnesses. I can imagine nothingness as a lack of anything. We can debate all you want over whether the lack of anything is itself a property. However, my theory concerns multiple nothingnesses. If nothingness alone is itself a state of existence, then surely multiple nothingnesses must be derived from that fact. In other words, to be a state of existence, there must be a boundary of existence. The boundary of existence for nothingness is what creates multiple nothingnesses.
The number zero is a symbol for the state of existence of nothingness. Once you admit the state of existence of nothingness, then you can repeat that state of existence by adding zeros together. Thus, you get the equation 0+0=0. It seems to me that your objection is that although the number zero does admit the state of existence of nothingness, you deny that nothingness in reality could have a state of existence. Am I correct in understanding your objection?
The point I am making is that in the equation 0+0=0, the singular zero can also exist as a state of multiple zeros added together. This raises the possibility that nothingness can exist in a state of multiple nothingnesses. In other words, nothingness itself becomes a state of existence from which multiple nothingnesses can arise. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether nothingness itself can exist. If it can, then nothingness can be a reference point for its own multiplication. I say nothingness itself can exist, and therefore, its state of existence is what creates the boundary that makes multiple nothingnesses possible.
We are really only arguing over whether nothingness itself can exist. I can imagine it to exist, because I can imagine a state consisting of the lack of anything. I am not sure why you don't believe nothingness could exist. The fact that nothingness alone exists is what creates multiple nothingnesses, which in turn creates matter and our existence. Indeed, our argument seems to be over whether zero exists in reality. I say it does. It isn't hard to imagine that nothingness itself exists, and because of its existence multiple nothingnesses were created which in turn created matter and the universe. In fact, I don't see how you could imagine nothingness didn't (doesn't) exist, when there is no reason to suspect that matter came from somewhere else.

 

[Enmos]

You are confusing the concepts of nothingness and multiple nothingnesses. I can imagine nothingness as a lack of anything. We can debate all you want over whether the lack of anything is itself a property.

Is lack of properties a property ? If somehow it is, nothingness even lacks that.
In fact you can't even say IT lacks anything, it doesn't exist.
You cannot attribute anything to nothingness.

However, my theory concerns multiple nothingnesses. If nothingness alone is itself a state of existence, then surely multiple nothingnesses must be derived from that fact. In other words, to be a state of existence, there must be a boundary of existence. The boundary of existence for nothingness is what creates multiple nothingnesses.

I think in trying to imagine nothingness you go wrong.
You seem to automatically attribute a size and a location to nothingness. This cannot be done. Nothingness does not exist by definition.
'Multiple nothingnesses' is therefor even a greater nonsense.

The number zero is a symbol for the state of existence of nothingness.

Not so.
When I have one apple and I eat it, I am left with zero apples. Not with nothingness.

Once you admit the state of existence of nothingness, then you can repeat that state of existence by adding zeros together.

Again, nothingness does not have a state and it certainly does not exist.

Thus, you get the equation 0+0=0. It seems to me that your objection is that although the number zero does admit the state of existence of nothingness, you deny that nothingness in reality could have a state of existence. Am I correct in understanding your objection?

Reality is the opposite of nothingness. Nothingness is nonexistence of everything.
As I said before zero does not equal nothingness.
Zero is a convenient representation to express not anything of something.

The point I am making is that in the equation 0+0=0, the singular zero can also exist as a state of multiple zeros added together. This raises the possibility that nothingness can exist in a state of multiple nothingnesses. In other words, nothingness itself becomes a state of existence from which multiple nothingnesses can arise. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether nothingness itself can exist. If it can, then nothingness can be a reference point for its own multiplication. I say nothingness itself can exist, and therefore, its state of existence is what creates the boundary that makes multiple nothingnesses possible.
We are really only arguing over whether nothingness itself can exist. I can imagine it to exist, because I can imagine a state consisting of the lack of anything. I am not sure why you don't believe nothingness could exist. The fact that nothingness alone exists is what creates multiple nothingnesses, which in turn creates matter and our existence. Indeed, our argument seems to be over whether zero exists in reality. I say it does. It isn't hard to imagine that nothingness itself exists, and because of its existence multiple nothingnesses were created which in turn created matter and the universe. In fact, I don't see how you could imagine nothingness didn't (doesn't) exist, when there is no reason to suspect that matter came from somewhere else.

See above... I didn't read this bit but you seem to go on about the same things that I addressed above.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Is lack of properties a property ? If somehow it is, nothingness even lacks that.
In fact you can't even say IT lacks anything, it doesn't exist.
You cannot attribute anything to nothingness.


I think in trying to imagine nothingness you go wrong.
You seem to automatically attribute a size and a location to nothingness. This cannot be done. Nothingness does not exist by definition.
'Multiple nothingnesses' is therefor even a greater nonsense.


Not so.
When I have one apple and I eat it, I am left with zero apples. Not with nothingness.


Again, nothingness does not have a state and it certainly does not exist.


Reality is the opposite of nothingness. Nothingness is nonexistence of everything.
As I said before zero does not equal nothingness.
Zero is a convenient representation to express not anything of something.


See above... I didn't read this bit but you seem to go on about the same things that I addressed above.

Now, we're getting somewhere. Your main objection seems to be that nothingness cannot exist. I say it can. And if you for the moment suspend your belief that nothingness can't exist, then you can see how my argument flows logically, no? I don't understand why you think nothingness couldn't exist. It seems to me that this is the default setting of existence. Its seems to me even from your incorrect world view, that nothingness would be a far more likely state of existence than somethingness, as nothingness does not suffer from the primary cause paradox.

 

[Enmos]

Now, we're getting somewhere. Your main objection seems to be that nothingness cannot exist.

Exactly. That, and the fact that zero does not equal nothingness. It represents not anything of something.

I say it can.

I know you do, and you're wrong.
Nothingness, by definition, does not exist.

And if you for the moment suspend your belief that nothingness can't exist, then you can see how my argument flows logically, no?

Sure, if I believe in your faulty and illogical premises I'd have to say I agree. But I don't believe in them.

I don't understand why you think nothingness couldn't exist. It seems to me that this is the default setting of existence. Its seems to me even from your incorrect world view, that nothingness would be a far more likely state of existence than somethingness, as nothingness does not suffer from the primary cause paradox.

Nothingness is just a concept, and not a very usable one at that.
It does not pertain to anything in the real world.
I'll just say it once again: Nothingness does not exist by definition and by logic.
If you don't agree with the definition you should make clear what it exactly is you are referring to as nothingness.