What now is that you have been refuted.
Vectorcube - You have postulated an empty world, and stated (in post #54) that it is a logical possibility. But the mere postulation of something (e.g. Heaven, or a separate universe, or a universe with different fundamental particles or forces) does not automatically make it a logical possibility.
The question is whether EW really is a possible world, and I don't think you have yet demonstrated that.
1. Is EW similar to a null set, or is that a false analogy?
2. Is a "state of affairs without anything" the same as the absence of a state of affairs? If not, what is the difference?
3. If a state of affairs is something, how is this compatible with absolute nothingness?
The thought is that if Y is natural, and X deviates from Y, then there ought to be a force F that transform Y into X.
I don't buy this premise (or anything that follows hence).
This hinges upon the dubious idea that what you observe (X) is unnatural, but what you don't observe (Y) is natural. It is FAR more likely that we're wrong about Y than that we're right and a transformative force is somehow required. Occam's razor.
It seems to me that the entire problem revolves around the human tendency to require a cause for every phenomenon. The question, 'why is there something rather than nothing?' does indeed seem to rest on the assumption that nothing is somehow more fundemental than something: i.e. that nothing preceeded something and is perhaps causal thereof. That assumption arises an application of what we observe in ordinary life (one event leading to or causing another) to an abstraction. If one thing/event/phenomeon must always precede and cause another, then logically, some thing/event/phenomena has to preceed and be the cause of everything. However, if we are asking what preceeded or caused everything, that cannot be a thing in the same sense as the various things which we are collectively calling everything, because then it would be included in the group 'everything.' Therefore, we require something outside everything, something which is not a thing, and that is nothing. What is nothing? The logical antithesis of 'thing'. It does not exist, it's an abstraction, an ideal, and one without any sense. The word means nothing (no pun intended).
We can provide a logical antithesis of something else, e.g. unshirt (antithesis to shirt), but that word doesn't mean anything; the fact that we can formulate this antithesis doesn't mean that it actually refers to something in the same way that shirt does. Unshirt exists only insofar as it is a logical derivative of the concept shirt, which refers to something really existent.
So, why does something exist instead or nothing? Because 'nothing' is a meaningless term, a logical ghost, which refers to nothing that exists. It only exists (as a term or thought) in relation to something.
Well, basically, you are denying 'nothing' is a natural state.
In fact, i am of the opinion that there are no natural state at all.
Well, basically, you are denying 'nothing' is a natural state. Fair enough. In fact, i am of the opinion that there are no natural state at all.
I don't think this is a difficult question at all. Seems to me that reality is constantly shoving the answer in your face. The universe is from our perspective a duality.
Materially, "nothing" is the absence of "something". And our linguistic and metaphysical conceptions of "nothing" are distillations of our material experience.
Because any possible state is as natural as any actual state?
Actually, "nothing" is a word. And to say that "nothing" is a natural state makes no sense, since how can the word, "nothing" be a natural state?
Maybe what you mean to say is that nothing is a natural state. But what that means is, that it is not the case that there are any natural states. Is that what you mean to say?
We really ought, at least, to distinguish between the word, "nothing", and the what it is supposed to refer to, if it can refer to anything; just as we distinguish between the word, "cat", and what the word "cat" refers to.
The issue is whether "nothing" is a referring word, like, "cat". Or whether it is a non-referring term like, "although". Does the word, "although" refer to anything? What is an although? Not all words are referring words.
Is it really a duality? Think about it. If a world is defined by the stuff in it, then a empty world would not be a world. If so, then where is the duality between something and nothing? Similarly, take the property of charge particles. There is a duality between positive change, and negative change. Do you think this duality is intricsic to the charge particle, or just a man-made convention? In this case, we cannot just expect to randomly naming something, because the charge nature of particles is instrinsic to the particle disregarding how we label it.
---------- Post added 08-11-2009 at 04:11 PM ----------
So, what is your point?
---------- Post added 08-11-2009 at 04:12 PM ----------
I don ` t talk to cheats.
Right, and "nothing" is idiomatically interchangeable with "not anything".
"I found nothing" = "I did not find anything"
The opposite of "nothing" can be "anything", "something", or any particular thing.
I do think in the context of the question "why there is something rather than nothing", we are talking about "ways the world could be". Thus, we must invoke possible worlds. We might interpret the question as asking why we life in an non-empty, and not an empty world(EW). Since, EW is not logically contradictory, then EW must be a possible world.
You seem to be very excitable.
But if an empty world cannot be a world,
We might interpret the question as asking why we live in an non-empty, and not an empty world(EW).
Since, EW is not logically contradictory, then EW must be a possible world.
So, what is your point?
Some people seem to be arguing that 'nothing' does exist in some fashion because is it possible-conceivable: i.e. that is exists as the very idea 'nothing.' 'Nothing' obviously then does not exist in the same way that 'something' exists: i.e. in actuality-reality. .