Why Not Nothing?_Answered

ucarr

If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A.

Is this chain of reasoning valid?

The chain of reasoning progresses to the conclusion that, “Existence is a necessary condition for a question to be asked.”

The structure of the argument is modus ponens. If its premise is true, then its conclusion must be true.

Premise 1: A⟹B. “If I ask a question, then someone exists.” This premise is sound because the act of asking a question (A) requires a sentient (a questioner) who performs it, thus guaranteeing existence of a sentient (B).

Premise 2: A is true; “The sentient is asking a question.” This premise is self-evidently true in the context of the sentient asking this question.

Intermediate Conclusion (via modus ponens): Since A is true, then B is true; “A sentient exists.” This conclusion follows from premises: A and B.

Premise 3: Given that a sentient exists, B implies C: “There is not nothing.” If a sentient exists, then the comprehension of nothing is not unrestricted; at least one sentient exists.

Conclusion: A⟹B, and B⟹C, therefore C is true: “There is not nothing because A.”

Yes, the chain of reasoning is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

The premises are true: “I am asking a question; therefore I exist, which implies that nothingness is not unrestricted.

This reasoning, at bottom, dovetails with René Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum.” Herein “I think therefore I am.” gets applied to the act of questioning. Asking a question requires a sentient in the role of an existing questioner.

Sentience is a dilemma

Irreducible complexity of consciousness – To know equals inscrutable being

To be equals inaccessible knowing

Why not nothing? = Why being? Asking either question assumes being, so being is inscrutable by questioning.

If being is necessary to knowing via questioning, then being is the limit of knowing by questioning and thus it makes questioning impotent WRT either being or knowing because knowing, a form of being, is also inscrutable.

“Why not nothing?” elicits the reasoning that reveals that math, logic, and science are incomplete and also that the universe is open (it didn’t start from nothing) and cannot be closed.

A universe that has an opening, likely has a closing because its opening strongly implies its closing in circularity with its opening, whereas a universe that has no opening also has no closing in the sense that its comprehension restriction is irrational in the sense that there’s no circularity linking closing and opening. An irrational universe that describes an infinite series towards it beginning, will likely also describe an infinite series towards its ending. Such an irrational universe is incomplete; irrationality and incompletion describe our universe.

The uncoupling of beginning and ending towards irrationality (pi=the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter; the n-gon approaches but never arrives at the circle.) moves the narrative of the universe away from circularity. This is good news because there will be no universal equilibrium.

Aborning cultures immature believe they see God; mature cultures know they don’t see God clearly, if at all. As science hordes up knowledge, it becomes clear that the rationality of knowledge and the irrationality of God will maintain the dark lens that affords looking through a looking glass darkly.

Theism is aligned with an open universe. God will not be completely understood.

AmadeusD

a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking.

180 Proof

God will not be completely understood. — ucarr

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either.

Why not nothing?

Maybe because "nothing" stops something from coming-to-be, etc.

PoeticUniverse

“Why not nothing?” — ucarr

This supposed 'Nothing' cannot be. This mistaken 'it' has no it and so it cannot even be meant; therefore existence must be, for it has no alternative, and indeed there is something; so no option.

God will not be completely understood. — ucarr

'God' has not been established, so, preachers everywhere, to speak of 'God' of being true is misleading and not intellectually honest.

180 Proof

↪PoeticUniverse

:up: :up:

Banno

Is this chain of reasoning valid? — ucarr

Back at the beginning, you presumed that there was someone asking a question. So it's no surprise that you can conclude that someone exists.

Asking a question presumes the questioner. Sure.

That's not demonstrating that something exists, so much as presuming it.

Which one must do, anyway. That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact.

Ciceronianus

There are moments when I find "something" disappointing, I'll admit. This is one of them.

180 Proof

That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact. — Banno

:up:

ucarr

↪180 Proof

God will not be completely understood. — ucarr

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it? Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises. Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?

ucarr

↪Ciceronianus

There are moments when I find "something" disappointing, I'll admit. This is one of them. — Ciceronianus

You can help me by elaborating some of the details of your mathematical and logical disappointments experienced while reading my OP. As you may have seen with Tom Storm, he supplies helpful details that clarify his dislikes. These details help me see more clearly where I can work towards improvement.

Richard B

That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact. — Banno

Looking at this from an early Wittgenstein perspective, a fact is just what is the case. And what is the case is some combination of objects. These objects are simple, can only be name, and spoken of but not asserted. A proposition presents the existence or non existence of facts. The totality of true propositions is what science strives for. Thus, the world is the totality of facts, not of things. So what are these things/objects? They are metaphysical presuppositions assumed in order to show how we come to understand the world around us.

180 Proof

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? — ucarr

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions..

I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it?

Incoherences and falsities.

Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises.

It only requires showing that theistic truth-claims lack sufficient truth-makers.

Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?

No. Why do you ask?

ucarr

↪Banno

Is this chain of reasoning valid? — ucarr

Back at the beginning, you presumed that there was someone asking a question. So it's no surprise that you can conclude that someone exists. — Banno

Yes, I presumed someone was asking the question, "Why is there not nothing?" This question, asked a long time ago, is the impetus for my OP. I'm not alone in doing that around here. It's one of the important reasons we come around here, isn't it?

Asking a question presumes the questioner. Sure. — Banno

Presuming the advanced sentience required by inquiry is no trivial matter. Do you demur?

That's not demonstrating that something exists, so much as presuming it. — Banno

What you say is true, however, the focus of my argument rests upon the implication that questioning something precludes the nothing that wants to be investigated. The upshot of this, also not trivial, says that existence is insuperable to the questioner. This is what I think gives the question of general existence special status. The questioner cannot examine general existence without presuming his own existence unexamined as he cannot get outside of himself and within himself his self-examination is ultimately tautological.

Which one must do, anyway. That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact. — Banno

The brute fact of existence lies at the heart of my argument: existence, being insuperable, presents as the limit of inquiry. Why do you consider this premise nothing more than mundane observation?

ucarr

↪Richard B

Thus, the world is the totality of facts, not of things. So what are these things/objects? They are metaphysical presuppositions assumed in order to show how we come to understand the world around us. — Richard B

Do you believe facts, which are narratives, lie trapped within language? Given such a situation, how can you think we can know and understand the world around us?

ucarr

↪180 Proof

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? — ucarr

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions.. — 180 Proof

Okay. Demonstrable fictions stand some distance away from gibberish. Demonstrable fictions have premises that can be true or false.

I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it?

Incoherences and falsities. — 180 Proof

Okay. As I take incoherences to be instances of invalidity, I see this list as your acknowledgement theistic narratives contain logical errors in the form of invalidity, as well as other types of logical errors.

Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises. — ucarr

It only requires showing that theistic truth-claims lack sufficient truth-makers. — 180 Proof

Okay. Your work includes exposing truth-claims unsupported by facts. Usually, a truth claim holds a premise embedded within.

Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?

No. Why do you ask? — 180 Proof

Let me quote you:

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

ucarr

↪PoeticUniverse

This supposed 'Nothing' cannot be. This mistaken 'it' has no it and so it cannot even be meant; therefore existence must be, for it has no alternative, and indeed there is something; so no option. — PoeticUniverse

All of this arises from your insuperable immersion in existence. Your argument boils down to saying, "Existence must be because it is." The problem, a problem of perspective, consists in the fact we observe existence from a position the makes not-existence unreachable.

ucarr

↪AmadeusD

a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking. — AmadeusD

Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin?

Richard B

↪ucarr

Isomorphically, the world shares the same logical form as our thoughts and language. That explains why the world makes sense to us.

ucarr

↪Richard B

Isomorphically, the world shares the same logical form as our thoughts and language. That explains why the world makes sense to us. — Richard B

This is helpful info. It bolsters my inclination to believe our sensory input is not entirely self-enclosed.

Paine

Heraclitus said that eternity stretches backward and forward. That pretty much frees up any need to explain why anything exists.

Causality needs the prospect of stuff not happening to get started. Nietzsche pointed out that if eternal recurrence is the case, everything that can happen already has done that. An interesting contrast to his efforts to provide causes for various predicaments.

Philosophim

Hello Ucarr, I'll try my best to analyze what you've written and tackle it properly.

If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A. — ucarr

Lets take your first set A -> B
A= "Asking a question"
B= "Someone exists"

Yes, if a question is being 'asked', the word 'asked', a verb, necessitates that 'someone is doing the asking'

C can be simplified from "There is not nothing" into "There is(exists) something"

So if someone exists, then logically, something exists as well.

“Why not nothing?” elicits the reasoning that reveals that math, logic, and science are incomplete and also that the universe is open (it didn’t start from nothing) and cannot be closed. — ucarr

Here is where the logic no longer works. Just because something exists, does not mean that the particulars of math, logic, and science are incomplete. Nor can it be logically claimed that it did not start from nothing. That's an assumption, not a proof.

So with that, the rest of the post is unnecessary to consider.

Ciceronianus

↪ucarr

My disappointment doesn't apply to you personally. I find us disappointing, in this case, for considering this question as if it can be answered through philosophy.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist?

This seems to me to be a question which science may answer someday, if the question addresses how the universe came to be. But I don't think philosophers will no matter how hard they think about it.

Philosophim

I find us disappointing, in this case, for considering this question as if it can be answered through philosophy.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist? — Ciceronianus

I post the answer here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

Ucarr is quite familiar with it. The only logical answer is that the universe is uncaused. What that logically entails is in the writing.

180 Proof

Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?
— ucarr
No. Why do you ask?
— 180 Proof

Let me quote you:

God will not be completely understood.
— ucarr
X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either.
— 180 Proof — ucarr

Well, I don't see how your question is warranted by – addresses – my reply.

ucarr

↪Philosophim

What you say about the modus ponens chain of reasoning is correct.

As for the timeline of our universe, what do you make of a timeline bidirectionally irrational? There’s no Zeno progression from a beginning-to-now paradox because there’s no beginning. Also, there’s no collapse to nothing that invokes the paradox of something collapsing to nothing while something collapsing to nothing is a something because there’s no collapse to nothing.

I admit that I’m indulging in far-fetching speculation by conjecturing about a bi-directional infinite series timeline that’s an eternal now based on the algebraic geometry of topology.

What do you think?

ucarr

↪Paine

Heraclitus said that eternity stretches backward and forward. That pretty much frees up any need to explain why anything exists. — Paine

Terse and very much to the point. Thanks for posting this.

Causality needs the prospect of stuff not happening to get started. — Paine

I'm inclined to think stuff is its own source of causality because causality involves symmetry and conservation. The symmetry of stuff mirrors out there, and then interaction with other symmetries causes emergence and the resulting ecology looks like a universe of variety. It's really just a lot of conserved transformations though.

Nietzsche pointed out that if eternal recurrence is the case, everything that can happen already has done that. — Paine

I hope there's no eternal recurrence; a closed-loop reality is unappealing.

ucarr

↪Ciceronianus

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist? — Ciceronianus

Are we compelled to say, "Nothing isn't an option." because our perspective is constrained by our insuperable immersion within being? The problem of perspective lies at the heart of my OP.

This seems to me to be a question which science may answer someday, if the question addresses how the universe came to be. — Ciceronianus

The problem of perspective includes the problem with asking, "How did the universe come to be?" This question sets up a linear timeline with a beginning of the universe. Because of the comprehension restriction problem, I have doubts about our understanding of the boundary of the universe. Some folks will hasten to say the universe has no center and no boundary.

Topology shows some promise of taking us beyond simple beginnings and endings.

ucarr

↪180 Proof

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

If X#÷^@WVH isn't gibberish, then please tell me what it says. I see the conjunction operator, but the terms on either side of it are unknown to me.

Mijin

Why not nothing? = Why being? Asking either question assumes being, so being is inscrutable by questioning. — ucarr

To ask the question of why anything exists requires a questioner, yes. But so what?

We also need a questioner to ask what dark matter is made of...does that observation solve the question of what dark matter is? Does it entail that a universe without dark matter is impossible?

Likewise the fact that sentience is a prerequisite for asking why anything exists, does not in any way answer the question. And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible.

This supposed 'Nothing' cannot be. This mistaken 'it' has no it and so it cannot even be meant; therefore existence must be, for it has no alternative, and indeed there is something; so no option. — PoeticUniverse

In English, "logical NOT" and "thing" get concatenated into a noun, nothing, but it's a special noun.

If we say "There's nothing to be afraid of", we don't mean that there's exactly one thing to be afraid of, that we are calling "nothing". We mean there are zero things to be afraid of.

Likewise "nothing existing" in the cosmic sense doesn't mean some entity we're calling "nothing" has the property of existence. It means zero things have the property of existence, including space-time.

I mention English, because not all languages do this thing of concatenating "no + thing" into a noun.
So a sentence like "nothing is still something" translates into absolute gibberish in many languages. e.g. It can translate into "zero things are one thing", or in some cases "it is not the case that thing is a thing".

Paine

↪ucarr

I meant to say that asking why something exists requires a determination that your use of "nothing" does not permit. The uncomfortable feeling engendered by Nietzsche's thought is the notion that everything has been determined already. Asking why something happens cannot operate in the infinitely determined or infinitely undetermined. The causes we deliberate upon cling to our mortality:

Thinking and the object of thought are the same. For you will not find thought apart from being, nor either of them apart from utterance. Indeed, there is not any at all apart from being, because Fate has bound it together so as to be whole and unmovable. Accordingly, all the usual notions that mortals accept and rely on as if true---coming-to-be and perishing, being and not-being, change of place and variegated shades of color---these are nothing more than names. — Parmenides, 8: 34-41, Wheelwright Edition

Another way to put it is through Spinoza saying that when try to imagine how the "undetermined" power of God thinks, we should not imagine it is how we deliberate to achieve our ends.

And there is, of course, that close student of Spinoza, Dirty Harry, who famously said: " A man has to know his limitations."

ucarr

↪Mijin

Why not nothing? = Why being? Asking either question assumes being, so [why-] being is inscrutable by questioning. — ucarr

To ask the question of why anything exists requires a questioner, yes. But so what? — Mijin

That because we ask the question, "Why not nothing?" there is not nothing means the question creates a tautology we can't escape. The insuperability of our being-ness tautology suggests why-being is the limit of our inquiry methodology. In the context of Philosophy, specifically ontology, this is not a trivial matter. Nominalism denies general being, but that denial merely shifts the tautology to individual beings.

We also need a questioner to ask what dark matter is made of...does that observation solve the question of what dark matter is? Does it entail that a universe without dark matter is impossible?

Likewise the fact that sentience is a prerequisite for asking why anything exists, does not in any way answer the question. And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible. — Mijin

Do your examples highlight the special status of the why-being question? A questioner can separate himself from physics; he can't separate himself from himself are per existence in pursuit of its why-being.

And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible. — Mijin

The tautology of the why-being inquiry, held at bay in non-self-referential inquiries, allows a fighting chance the questioner might arrive at the why-answers to physics. Step outside of physics and you step into the supernaturalism of theism. In the context of supernaturalism, perhaps things are created from nothing. At our level of physics while in the flesh, the inaccessibility of nothingness is a problem of perspective emergent from our state of being necessarily within existence.

Does supernaturalism allow the super-positioning of not being and being? As a natural person, it's hard for me to picture the transition point between nothing and something in the creation of something from nothing. How could such a transition point occur given the fact that such a transition is centered in somethingness? Is there a logical escape from the somethingness that is the phenomenon of creating somethingness from nothingness? If the agent creating something from nothing exists necessarily, how can the presence of this somethingness have contact with nothingness? Any presence of somethingness obliterates nothingness.

Why Not Nothing?_Answered

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories