A possible solution to why is there something rather than nothing.

@xris,

xris;96489 wrote:

But can you accept that before this universe there was no, something?

Why would we consider that?

The sky is blue, why would I go to lengths to imagine it being yellow?

Why must we suppose what we cannot comprehend? What purpose does it accomplish?

We have some thing. Why must we try to grasp no thing?

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96497 wrote:

I list some people with solutions. It is incorrect for me to take their credit, and say it is my idea. If you actually read, i actually never commit myself to any one position. i analyze some position, and find some position desirabe, and some unacceptable. I can look at many ideas, and objectively analyze it without commiting to anyone position. You on the other hand have no interest in learning, and objectively critizuing your own idea, and how it compares to others. Many crackpots are like you. They have no interest in learning, understanding the subject matter, and they rush to the most naive position that comes to mind. They lanch on to an idea with their pride, and be completely unwilling to learn from other people.

I don't expect you to take their credit but if you can in any way tell me how their conclusions are any more valid than mine, i need you to select a more valid theory and give me your views on its authority. In my musing i am merely asking how you distinguish between nothing seen and nothing. Certain posters appear to believe they have the answers but refuse to share their marvelous knowledge with us mortals. There is not one theory that stands scrutiny nor has any real proven ability to convince anyone of its possibility. So come on give me your best theory, for me to consider, educate this poor fool.

@xris,

xris;96501 wrote:

I In my musing i am merely asking how you distinguish between nothing seen and nothing. Certain posters appear to believe they have the answers but refuse to share their marvelous knowledge with us mortals. .

Nothing seen does not imply nothing; but nothing does imply nothing seen.

@Pathfinder,

I think I'm in agreement with you, Pathfinder. Something cannot come from nothing, so if nothing is ever the reality of things, it will remain so forever. The fact that you and I exist (whatever we might be) means not only the something exists now but that something has necessarily always existed.

I take that a further step with which you may not agree. Because the only everlasting existence within a temporal framework (within time) is ultimately an infinite regression of somethings, and because infinite regressions can never be fully explained from a causal standpoint (and are therefore weak concepts), I say that something must exist outside of time. An existence outside of time is incapable of change, but this same constraint means that it can have no beginning or end and therefore must "necessarily always exist."

Now what the identities of these somethings ARE (about whose existence I have been talking) well, I don't know. Perhaps, some transcendent form of asparagus? :-)
But why worry about the qualities and properties of the somethings until and unless we can logically establish their existence. In art, one lays out the symmetry and context on the canvas first and then builds details.

Samm

@SammDickens,

Samm;96516 wrote:

I think I'm in agreement with you, Pathfinder. Something cannot come from nothing,
Samm

If you both agree, then if one is right, the other is right. But, of course, that does not show you are both right. So, I wonder whether either of you has a reason for believing that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. It does not seem to be impossible to me, since it does not seem to imply a contradiction, and only what implies a contradiction is impossible.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96497 wrote:

I list some people with solutions. It is incorrect for me to take their credit, and say it is my idea. If you actually read, i actually never commit myself to any one position. i analyze some position, and find some position desirabe, and some unacceptable. I can look at many ideas, and objectively analyze it without commiting to anyone position. You on the other hand have no interest in learning, and objectively critizuing your own idea, and how it compares to others. Many crackpots are like you. They have no interest in learning, understanding the subject matter, and they rush to the most naive position that comes to mind. They lanch on to an idea with their pride, and be completely unwilling to learn from other people.

vectorcube, you must remember that every person you may respectfully list, and from whom you may garner your own opinions and beliefs, is actually a "crackpot" free-thinker just like xris, someone who dares ponder the imponderable and attempt understanding as best they can. He certainly is a philosopher in that attitude of questing for comprehension where facts are sparce. He just happens to be a philosopher with whom you disagree. :detective:

Samm

---------- Post added 10-10-2009 at 11:22 AM ----------

kennethamy;96517 wrote:

If you both agree, then if one is right, the other is right. But, of course, that does not show you are both right. So, I wonder whether either of you has a reason for believing that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. It does not seem to be impossible to me, since it does not seem to imply a contradiction, and only what implies a contradiction is impossible.

kennethamy, you are right that if we agree with each other it only means that we are both right or wrong and doesn't say doodly-squat about the soundness of our reasonings. Here's my reasoning.

If something has a beginning, as all somethings within time seem to have, then we must ask for the cause or explanation of their beginning, e.g. we may ask where they came from (in our common idiom).

If we say that something comes from something else, there is an implication that the something else had a priori existence in the sequence of time, that the something else existed beforehand and executed some process or actions that brought about the beginning of the something in question. This may mean constructing, birthing, conceiving, painting, or any other creative process involving actually one or more something elses. There is I hope no need to go into the many various possibilities of something coming from something.

If we say that something comes from nothing, we may understand nothing in a number of ways, the accuracy of which understandings is to be disputed between us.

One belief seems to be that nothing means nothing perceptible to the senses--nothing that can be held or touched, smelled or tasted, seen or heard, or otherwise perceived. "Liberty" for example cannot be perceived, it has no presence or direct perceptible effect. Therefore, if something comes from liberty, it may be said to come from nothing. More specifically, the idea of potential but unmanifest being is considered to be nothing until it is manifested.

Another belief system (beware my personal bias here) is that nothing means absolute nothing, with neither manifest nor unmanifest existence. This nothing is the antithesis of existence. Liberty, in this understanding of nothing, is something rather than nothing. Potential but unmanifest being is considered to be something even before it is manifested.

My understanding of nothing is the absolute, antithetical variety. If there is nothing, then there is absolutely no existence. If there is absolutely no existence then there can be no potential, no causal efficacy, no explanatory capability, not anything. Something cannot come from such nothing because the possibility is excluded by definition. Something simply cannot materialize in the absolute absence of all cause and substance. Or, as I have said elsewhere, if something comes from nothing, then nothing had something up its sleeve. :shifty:

Samm

@vectorcube,

There is no such thing as 'no thing' because as soon as we attempt to pinpoint 'no thing' it automatically becomes 'some' thing.

No thing would by its own definition be no thing, and no thing cannot be 'some' thing that would be the point of the origin of some thing.

This is simple logic.

The problem arises only when we attempt to comprehend the origin of what we know as some thing. We immediately are faced with the concept of time, infinity and eternity. Now the human mind is simply unable to comprehend these dynamics, and so, the concept of no thing being caught up in that supernatural housing of creational origin is merely an incomprehensible dilemma beyond the human understanding.

However, just because are incapable, or we do not understand a thing, does not mean that the truth of it cannot exist. These truths exist despite our ignorance of them.

The truth of creation is there. It happened. Our inability to know it, or even to imagine it, does not alter it.

Therefore, it is some thing that we know existed, so that is all we have to work with. What we can do from that point is look forward and try to understand the things we are able to comprehend or learn.

What we do see is a complexity that cries out intelligent design. What that is would be sheer speculation. But to see the garden, in the midst of the jungle, arranged into a complex geometric design that is obviously not there by accident, is evidence of some thing else. It is certainly not evidence of no thing.

@xris,

xris;96501 wrote:

I don't expect you to take their credit but if you can in any way tell me how their conclusions are any more valid than mine, i need you to select a more valid theory and give me your views on its authority. In my musing i am merely asking how you distinguish between nothing seen and nothing. Certain posters appear to believe they have the answers but refuse to share their marvelous knowledge with us mortals. There is not one theory that stands scrutiny nor has any real proven ability to convince anyone of its possibility. So come on give me your best theory, for me to consider, educate this poor fool.

I can give you a reading list, video leatures and some articles. I am not going to give you a definite answer. I am not in need to commit to any solution. So far, the solution from modern philosophers tend to be divided into:

1) a mind that conceived the laws of nature, and actualize a possible world. ( keith ward)
2) Everything is consciousness, and that is why the universe exist. ( david charlmes)
3) our world exist because it satisfies ethical requirements. ( john leslia)
4) max tagmarks` s level 4 multiverse
5) robert nozick ` s principle of fecundity.

see: Why is There "Something" Rather than "Nothing"? | Closer to Truth

@Pathfinder,

Because we can not conceive of something, should that stop us trying? Im still trying to explain that the illusion of nothing and something maybe just the same. We try to fathom what preceded the BB but there maybe nothing to fathom. Why is it so inconceivable that as it was the first event witnessed, it could be just that. No natural laws can explain, no laws we know can define.

@SammDickens,

Samm;96519 wrote:

vectorcube, you must remember that every person you may respectfully list, and from whom you may garner your own opinions and beliefs, is actually a "crackpot" free-thinker just like xris, someone who dares ponder the imponderable and attempt understanding

Samm

No, i don ` t read crackpots. People that forms my reading list are people that research, and specializes on the topic. They better be knowledgable, or i will not read them.

Every person that ever had anything interesting to say about a subject learn everything there is to know about the subject first.
Respect is earn by years of study, and research.

---------- Post added 10-10-2009 at 02:27 PM ----------

xris;96545 wrote:

Why is it so inconceivable that as it was the first event witnessed, it could be just that. No natural laws can explain, no laws we know can define.

Because if natural laws/principles cannot explain the bb, then it is incomprehensible, and from the point of view of science, useless. There are better options that do not assume the bb as a supernatural event at all. Philosophers do tend to propose principles that makes the bb less surprising, and normal with less metaphysical assumptions.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96547 wrote:

No, i don ` t read crackpots. People that forms my reading list are people that research, and specializes on the topic. They better be knowledgable, or i will not read them.

Every person that ever had anything interesting to say about a subject learn everything there is to know about the subject first.
Respect is earn by years of study, and research.

Then dont debate with lesser mortals who you judge with little knowledge of their attention of a subject. Do you examine your phone bill without the knowledge of the px 34 system that connects you. Do you ask why it rains without a degree in meteorology. Once upon a time, one man could master and learn all the knowledge that existed , today no man knows a one iota of the knowledge accumulated, it requires us all to examine by imagination that knowledge man has the desire to acquire. We may fail but tell me who of our greatest minds can do better, or has?

@xris,

xris;96554 wrote:

Then dont debate with lesser mortals who you judge with little knowledge of their attention of a subject. Do you examine your phone bill without the knowledge of the px 34 system that connects you. Do you ask why it rains without a degree in meteorology. Once upon a time, one man could master and learn all the knowledge that existed , today no man knows a one iota of the knowledge accumulated, it requires us all to examine by imagination that knowledge man has the desire to acquire. We may fail but tell me who of our greatest minds can do better, or has?

people don` t do research if they already know the answer. If you want to know about something, then research about it. The worst thing you can do is start commenting out of thin air.

@SammDickens,

Samm;96519 wrote:

vectorcube, you must remember that every person you may respectfully list, and from whom you may garner your own opinions and beliefs, is actually a "crackpot" free-thinker just like xris, someone who dares ponder the imponderable and attempt understanding as best they can. He certainly is a philosopher in that attitude of questing for comprehension where facts are sparce. He just happens to be a philosopher with whom you disagree. :detective:

Samm

---------- Post added 10-10-2009 at 11:22 AM ----------

kennethamy, you are right that if we agree with each other it only means that we are both right or wrong and doesn't say doodly-squat about the soundness of our reasonings. Here's my reasoning.

If something has a beginning, as all somethings within time seem to have, then we must ask for the cause or explanation of their beginning, e.g. we may ask where they came from (in our common idiom).

If we say that something comes from something else, there is an implication that the something else had a priori existence in the sequence of time, that the something else existed beforehand and executed some process or actions that brought about the beginning of the something in question. This may mean constructing, birthing, conceiving, painting, or any other creative process involving actually one or more something elses. There is I hope no need to go into the many various possibilities of something coming from something.

If we say that something comes from nothing, we may understand nothing in a number of ways, the accuracy of which understandings is to be disputed between us.

One belief seems to be that nothing means nothing perceptible to the senses--nothing that can be held or touched, smelled or tasted, seen or heard, or otherwise perceived. "Liberty" for example cannot be perceived, it has no presence or direct perceptible effect. Therefore, if something comes from liberty, it may be said to come from nothing. More specifically, the idea of potential but unmanifest being is considered to be nothing until it is manifested.

Another belief system (beware my personal bias here) is that nothing means absolute nothing, with neither manifest nor unmanifest existence. This nothing is the antithesis of existence. Liberty, in this understanding of nothing, is something rather than nothing. Potential but unmanifest being is considered to be something even before it is manifested.

My understanding of nothing is the absolute, antithetical variety. If there is nothing, then there is absolutely no existence. If there is absolutely no existence then there can be no potential, no causal efficacy, no explanatory capability, not anything. Something cannot come from such nothing because the possibility is excluded by definition. Something simply cannot materialize in the absolute absence of all cause and substance. Or, as I have said elsewhere, if something comes from nothing, then nothing had something up its sleeve. :shifty:

Samm

I think that first of all, we ought to distinguish between:

1. Something does not come from nothing. and,
2. Something cannot (it is impossible that) come from nothing.

2. is stronger than 1. and that means 2. implies 1. but 1. does not imply 2. So, 2 may be false, but 1 may still be true. I am not clear (and maybe you and your opponent are not clear) whether you are maintaining 1, or you are maintaining, 2. As I said, 2 may be true and, as a matter of fact, nothing ever has come from nothing. But, that, of course, does not show that it is impossible for anything to come from nothing. So. I am not sure which, 1 or 2, you are maintaining is true.

You write:

My understanding of nothing is the absolute, antithetical variety. If there is nothing, then there is absolutely no existence. If there is absolutely no existence then there can be no potential, no causal efficacy, no explanatory capability, not anything. Something cannot come from such nothing because the possibility is excluded by definition. Something simply cannot materialize in the absolute absence of all cause and substance. Or, as I have said elsewhere, if something comes from nothing, then nothing had something up its sleeve.

It seems to me, that in this paragraph, you are not really giving any reason from believing that something cannot come from nothing, as I think you are. Instead, you are saying that nothing can come from nothing because, nothing can come from nothing. In other words, your argument is circular. The premise and the conclusion come to the same thing. You really admit that by saying that the possibility of nothing coming from nothing is "excluded by definition". To take an analogy, if some man is a bachelor, then his being married is "excluded by definition". Of course! Buy, so what? That, of course!, is true, because that is what the word "bachelor" means. But, that is no revelation about bachelors, since if someone were married, we simply would not call him a "bachelor". Similarly, according to you, if Y did come from X, then X could not be "nothing". We would not say it was "nothing" by (what you call) definition. If you define "nothing" as something from which something cannot come, then obviously, something cannot come from nothing. Just as if you define "bachelor" as something that cannot be married, then, obviously, bachelors cannot be married. But this is a matter of definitions, not a matter of what actually happens outside of language and definitions. Truth about the world is not something you can create by definition. Definitions can give you only truths about language. Obviously, something cannot come from nothing if you define "nothing" as what something cannot come from. But what does that show about whether something can come from nothing. Nothing. So, you have really made no argument that something cannot come from nothing. It just looks like an argument.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96560 wrote:

people don` t do research if they already know the answer. If you want to know about something, then research about it. The worst thing you can do is start commenting out of thin air.

This thin air has little oxygen and it heightens your perception of what might be, not your uncertain, certainties. I wont argue or debate with any doctor of medicine or chemistry but this is one subject that is more open to philosophy than any other scientific quandary. I dont understand your objections on content when you hardly venture to question them.

@xris,

xris;96573 wrote:

This thin air has little oxygen and it heightens your perception of what might be, not your uncertain, certainties. I wont argue or debate with any doctor of medicine or chemistry but this is one subject that is more open to philosophy than any other scientific quandary. I dont understand your objections on content when you hardly venture to question them.

Philosophy is no different from any other areas of knowledge. You do research in philosophy by reading the debates, and views of other modern philosophers. If this lead you to read textbooks, then so be it.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96576 wrote:

Philosophy is no different from any other areas of knowledge. You do research in philosophy by reading the debates, and views of other modern philosophers. If this lead you to read textbooks, then so be it.

If it gave you the answers, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

@xris,

xris;96582 wrote:

If it gave you the answers, this debate would have ended a long time ago.

Nothing that profound will ever really end your inquiry.

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96547 wrote:

No, i don ` t read crackpots. People that forms my reading list are people that research, and specializes on the topic. They better be knowledgable, or i will not read them.

Every person that ever had anything interesting to say about a subject learn everything there is to know about the subject first.
Respect is earn by years of study, and research.

I won't criticize your reading list, vectorcube. But you don't know how much time your fellow posters have spent studying information about what they post. If Einstein had lived in our computer world, he would have been testing his "crackpot" ideas in such arenas as these boards, and I don't think you would have afforded him the credit he deserved, since he was just some poor nurd working in a patent office.

If we're not good enough for you, take it elsewhere.

Samm

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96587 wrote:

Nothing that profound will ever really end your inquiry.

Thats your problem you assume much to much. For all your debate you have not once had an objection that has any authority, or a valid criticism, that has any substance. You are the star of rhetoric and not much else.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96517 wrote:

If you both agree, then if one is right, the other is right. But, of course, that does not show you are both right. So, I wonder whether either of you has a reason for believing that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. It does not seem to be impossible to me, since it does not seem to imply a contradiction, and only what implies a contradiction is impossible.

1. If something "came" (i.e. came into existence), it had a beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, it has not always existed.
3. If it has not always existed, there was a time when it did not exist. (Because if there were no such time, the thing would never have been non-existent, i.e. it would always have existed.)
4. Time is something.
5. Therefore, something must come from something; it cannot come from nothing.

Philosophy Forum

A possible solution to why is there something rather than nothing.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know