This is very simple. You present empiricism. And my argument is for a priori. — telex

That is just a formula you keep repeating to duck the points I've made. You have yet to justify it as a reasonable position to take - a priori, or otherwise,

That is just a formula you keep repeating to duck the points I've made. You have yet to justify it as a reasonable position to take - a priori, or otherwise, — apokrisis

The points you've made are grounded in empiricism. If the arguments don't clash head on, there's no reason for me to argue further.

You present empiricism. — telex

Just because you keep repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

So far you have neither demonstrated that your conception of Nothingness is actually a priori in any strict sense, nor that a priori reasoning is even a legitimate method here.

But if you're not interested, that's fine. It's still a worthy topic. :up:

Just because you keep repeating that claim doesn't make it true.

So far you have neither demonstrated that your conception of Nothingness is actually a priori in any strict sense, nor that a priori reasoning is even a legitimate method here.

But if you're not interested, that's fine. It's still a worthy topic. :up: — apokrisis

You've presented quantum mechanics. That is empiricism. It's even the quote you posted, it said these scientists are empiricists.

A a priori conception of nothingness is not empiricism.

My answer will always be the same. These arguments don't clash head on.

More than one noted philosopher in the past has dealt with the concept of nothing. One, if I recall correctly, considered it of great importance in mathematics, where the concept of nothing, zero, as the start of natural numbers resides. You might find the book, A Brief History of Analytic Philosophy by Mr. Stephen Schwartz of interest. — Torus34

Oops!

I suggested the wrong book. The suggested 'starter' book is Analytic Philosophy: A very short introduction, by Michael Beaney.

Sorry for the error.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Oops!

I suggested the wrong book. The suggested 'starter' book is Analytic Philosophy: A very short introduction, by Michael Beaney.

Sorry for the error.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. — Torus34

Definitely, thanks! I'll take a look at it as well.

EDIT:
I just realized something: when we get to the question - "is this the kind of thing that has motion?"

It seems we have two possibilities here INSTEAD of one:

First possibility is in the main OP.

This is the second possibility:

On the other hand we can say both motion and not-motion is only 1 possibility. The OTHER possibility is that --> infinity does not imply both motion and not-motion, we can say that we are only assuming that because one part is NOT in motion, the other part must be in motion. Therefore, NOT-motion can apply to everything.

So the argument can look like this:

1) Infinity implies a presence everywhere and in every conceivable place, therefore, in this sense the ‘fabric of simple space’ is “not in motion”, because it has nowhere to expand to, since It’s already everywhere.
2) We CANNOT assume that just because (1) has no motion, then the internal framework must have motion. So it could be that there is no motion in the internal framework. (Perhaps we are only seeing motion because some "mind" that is not in motion has in some way "thought" us into reality)

HOWEVER -> it seems like we can eliminate this entire second possibility, because "I am a thinking thing that has thoughts" (Descartes idea: ergo sum), and it would seem that thoughts require motion like an exchange of information between certain parts of my mind. It seems that without exchange of information in my mind or "movement of information in my mind," I would have no thoughts. Therefore, there must be motion. (unless we can conceive some other way a mind can work ... then we are left with two possibilities instead of one ... one possibility would lead us to motion/collision and the other possibility would lead us to completely "stillness" ... like a "still" mind that can hallucinate us into thinking we exist)

ah -- now I remember -- the idea of "a black void, void of anything" is an epicurian type idea (greek atomists)

the idea of simple space relating to Netwon - i'd have to read up on that - I haven't looked there

I guess there was another possibility not mentioned relating to original OP:

in relation to - "is this the kind of thing that has motion?"

The possibilities are:
1)ALL motion
2) Motion and Not-motion
3)Not-Motion

and the possibility of (1) 'ALL motion' is negated by:

1) Infinity implies a presence everywhere and in every conceivable place, therefore, in this sense the ‘fabric of simple space’ is “not in motion”, because it has nowhere to expand to, since It’s already everywhere.

Therefore, it can't ALL be in motion. So we are only left with (2) Motion and Not-motion

I found this on standford encylopedia about Newton's idea of space:

"Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable."

so I guess when I mention "simple space" i can say that it's related to the idea of Newtons concept of absolute space (minus the immovable part, because now we are considering: "is this the kind of thing that has motion")

So it looks like what we "weaved" here is:
Epicurus
Newton
Einstein
NASA
Descartes

So it looks like what we’ve done here is eliminated possibilities but we never answered any questions about “why”?

It seems that the first question is -> why is a black void, void of anything or infinite empty simple space equals to the definition of nothing. In a counterpoint , some could say nothing = zero. Zero means no space, no simple space, no black voids void of anything.

However, we can reply back that it is impossible for simple space NOT to exist. It’s inconceivable that simple space CANNOT exist. No matter what, there must always be simple space.

So perhaps if we tried to apply zero to the external world, we could eliminate everything BUT simple space. (Cartesian skepticism)

So if we tried to say that nothing is nothing, a zero, where nothing exists (even simple space) -> we can always say that, we can never eliminate the existence of simple space.

So what we have here is → (including simple space) 0 = 0 (including simple space)
We can also say that → 0 ≠ 0 (including simple space)
We can also say that → (excluding simple space) 0 = 0 (excluding simple space)

So we can always say that 0 = 0
In another theoretical sense, we could have 0 (including simple space).

So it seems we can say that → 0-1=x; or x = -1
We can also say that → 0 (including simple space) - 1 = x; or x = an approximation of infinity [since we can say that simple space is infinite]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next question
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The other question we have is “is simple space the kind of thing that can have motion?”
And “why does it have motion?”

Previously we tried to divide simple space in half (in the example with a katana) and the result was one side goes infinitely to the left and the other side goes infinitely to the right. So we can say that they are balanced.

However, it seems like we can go further than this. We could say that it appears simple space is the end of all regression, so theoretically we CANNOT divide simple space, because there’s nowhere else to regress.
So then we can ask → why does simple space have motion?

Perhaps we should consider what infinity implies about itself in “totality” of itself. Perhaps it is the case that the human mind is unable to understand or grasp infinity, because the human mind is finite.

However it seems that maybe if we tried to say something about infinity, we can ask - what number is infinity? Is it an odd number or is it an even number (and we can ascribe more complex mathematical qualities to it as well).

Is infinity an approximately infinitely large even number or an approximately infinitely large odd number? (222222^2222222 or 33333333^3333333) (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity)

It seems the answer to this is BOTH. It seems we can say that infinity is both an odd and even number. (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity)

So what does this say about infinite simple space and motion? We can say that infinite simple space is BOTH an odd and an even number (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity). What does this mean? It seems that simple space being BOTH an odd and an even quantity (in addition to other mathematical qualities of infinity) could imply some kind of instability in simple space and thereby lead to motion.

So when we ask why is there motion or instability? We can say that infinity is both an odd and an even number. (and we can also ascribe other mathematical qualities to infinity)

we can also say that we are being way too blunt about infinity here and we'd need to discuss more mathematical qualities, properties, previous scholarly inquiries about infinity in this discussion.

However, we can reply back that it is impossible for simple space NOT to exist. It’s inconceivable that simple space CANNOT exist. No matter what, there must always be simple space.

So perhaps if we tried to apply zero to the external world, we could eliminate everything BUT simple space. — telex

Inconceivable = untrue? How Cartesian!

let's put a Cartesian skepticism label on it.

However, we can reply back that it is impossible for simple space NOT to exist. It’s inconceivable that simple space CANNOT exist. No matter what, there must always be simple space.

So perhaps if we tried to apply zero to the external world, we could eliminate everything BUT simple space. (Cartesian skepticism) — telex

In some ways, I agree with you and in others I disagree. I agree that you just can't get something from nothing, with from (implying a change), being the important word. I disagree in that I think nothing is more like the 0 you talk about. There's no volume, or black void. The situation I consider nothing to be is the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume/void, time, laws of physics/math/logic, abstract concepts, possibilities, and the lack of all minds to consider this lack of all.

The way I look at it, the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is like saying you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with 1 (e.g., "something"). But, like you said you can't get something from nothing, so the only way, you can do this is if somehow the 0 isn’t really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, maybe the way we've always visualized the situation we consider to be "nothing" is incorrect. If we could instead see this situation from a different perspective, we could see that it's a "something". How can this happen? And, I apologize for the long comment.

In regard to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, two possible solutions are:

A. “Something” has always been here.
B. “Something” has not always been here.

Choice A is possible but doesn’t explain anything; although, I’ll come back to it below. If we go with choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. In other words, there was “nothing” and now there is “something”. Now, if this supposed “nothing” before the “something” was truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing”. There must have been some existent entity, or “something”, present that could either have been the “something” we see now or that would have contained the mechanism needed to cause that “something” to appear. Because we got rid of all the existent entities we could think of, the only thing that could be an existent entity would be the supposed “nothing” itself. That is, it must in fact be a “something”. This is logically required if we go with choice B, and I don’t think there’s a way around that. Another way to say this is that if you start with 0 and end up with 1, you can’t do this unless somehow the 0 isn’t really 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. Overall, this idea leads to the result that “something” is necessary because even what we used to think of as the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, is a “something”. Ironically, going with choice B leads to choice A. If what we used to think of as “absolute nothing” is actually an existent entity, or a “something”, this would always have been true, which means that this “something” would always have been here.

Instead of insisting that “nothing” can’t be a “something” and refusing to continue, it’s more useful to follow the logic described above and try to figure out how “nothing” can be a “something”. So, how can this be? I think it’s first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping that defines what is contained within. By defining what is contained within, it groups what is contained within into a single unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives “substance” and existence to the thing. In the case of a book, the grouping together of all the individual atoms and the bonds individual atoms creates a new and unique existent entity called a “book”, which is a different existent entity than the atoms and bonds inside considered individually. This grouping provides the surface that we see and can touch and that we call the “book”. Try to imagine a book that has no surface defining what is contained within. Even if you remove the cover, the collection of pages that’s left still has a surface. How do you even touch or see something without a surface? You can’t because it wouldn’t exist. As a different example, consider the concept of an automobile. This is a mental construct in the head that groups together individual concepts/constructs labeled “tire”, “engine”, “car body”, etc. into a new and unique entity labeled as the concept “automobile”. Here, the grouping is not seen as a physical surface but as the mental label “automobile” for the collection of subconcepts. But, this construct still exists because it’s a grouping defining what is contained within. One last example is that of a set. Does a set exist before the rule defining what elements are contained within is present? No. So, in conclusion, a grouping or relationship present defining what is contained within is an existent entity.

Next, apply this definition of why a thing exist to the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” To start, “absolute nothing”, or “non-existence”, is first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time, thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think about this “absolute lack-of-all”. Now, try to visualize this. When we get rid of all existent entities including matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, we think what is left is the lack of all existent entities, or “absolute nothing” (here, I don’t mean our mind’s conception of this supposed “absolute nothing”, I mean the supposed “absolute nothing” itself, in which all minds would be gone). This situation is very hard to visualize because the mind is trying to imagine a situation in which it doesn’t exist. But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this “absolute lack-of-all”, would be it; it would be the everything. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that “absolute nothing”? No. It is “nothing”, and it is the all. An entirety, whole amount or “the all” is a grouping that defines what is contained within (e.g., everything), which means that the situation we previously considered to be “absolute nothing” is itself an existent entity. The entirety/whole amount/”the all” grouping is itself the surface, or boundary, of this existent entity. Said another way, by its very nature, “absolute nothing”/”the all” defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. What this means is that “something” is necessary, or non-contingent, because even what we previously, and incorrectly, visualized as the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, is a “something. While this is not a new idea, a physical mechanism for how this can be is new.

One objection some could raise is that starting with “nothing” and seeing how it could be a “something” seems to imply a temporal change (first “nothing”, then “something”), but time would not exist until there was “something”. So, I don’t consider this a temporal change. Instead, I suggest that in switching between the perspective of visualizing “nothing” as just nothing at all and the other perspective of seeing it as a grouping and therefore a “something”, the mind can misinterpret this as a temporal change. It’s not. It’s just flipping back and forth between two different ways of thinking about the same thing: nothing.

Another objection that often comes up is that by talking about “nothing”, I’m reifying, or giving existence, to it, and this is what makes “nothing” seem like “something”. But, this objection is incorrect for the following reason. It conflates “nothing” itself with the mind’s conception of “nothing”. These are two different things. In “nothing” itself, our minds and our talking about “nothing” would not be there. This means that our talking about “nothing” has no effect on whether or not "nothing” itself exists.

Where I get back to agreeing with you is that we can figure out some properties of the existent entity we used to consider as being nothing. This entity and its properties lead to the universe we see around us, which is made of existent entities.

If you’re still reading at this point, thanks!, and there’s more detail at my website at:

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/

"There are two problems about the ‘something from nothing’ && ‘something from something’ argument"

I did not read all the OP but agree that both these idea are hopeless. The solution would be to note that it is very difficult to define or conceptualise 'something' and 'nothing'. They are ideas. The problem is caused by assuming they are more than this,.

As you say, ( I think) the solution is to break down the distinction. It is precisely this breaking down of distinctions that allows the perennial philosophy to be a fundamental description of Reality while avoiding this kind of problem. We can have no fundamental theory when we reify the something-nothing distinction, for the reasons you give. .