"A Materialist (aka metaphysical Physicalist, "Naturalist", or Nominalist) will say that there just is the physical world, and that it's just a brute-fact. We observe it, measure it, and it's there, and there's no explanation. Some people don't find that satisfactory.
But there's no such problem, nothing to explain, if, metaphysically, there isn't anything "concrete" and objectively-existent. ...if there's nothing but abstract facts.
And you have to admit that, if you believe that, metaphysically, at the metaphysical level, there's something "concrete", solid, objectively-existent, then you've got something to explain. Why is there something instead of Nothing?"
.If the case were that there was nothing rather than something, then it would not even be possible to ask such a question - there being nothing is ask, and nothing to answer. Symmetrically, then, there is no burden to have to answer why there is something rather than nothing.
.The condition of nothing rather than something is not even a condition or state of affairs. Nothing is also no state of affairs at all.
.Things being concrete or objective is just a detail. If the world were purely conceptual and subjective, there still would have to BE a conceiver and subject to conceive.
.Object/subject divisions are not questions about existence, but about perceptions of existence - as existence is a substrate of the ground of possibility of asking.
.Object/subject divisions are not questions about existence, but about perceptions of existence…
In what other way can we make sense of N?
What other properties of N are there? — TheMadFool
doesn't it confuse you when you quantify N and realize that you have assigned it a property and it ceases to exist? — Myttenar
Not much of a point saying this, but if you added nothing to every location, would you really be changing anything? I mean how could anyone know that nothing is not everywhere unless an example could be proven for which it is impossible to add nothing? I believe if it can happen it will or it already has.And I'm just going to point out here that nothing is, in fact not everywhere. — Myttenar
To say "nothing" exists is in itself a fallacy as nothing carries the definition as being the opposite of "something " which we can quantify. — Myttenar
. Since nothing had been defined as having no properties by assigning value it is no longer nothing by definition. — Myttenar
So, N is neither mental nor physical. It can't be a thought and neither is it a physical object. — TheMadFool
Things are. Nothing is not. "what is nothing" is a meaningless question like what is the colour of F-sharp, Or what does blue sound like.
Things have properties. Nothing has no properties, as having is a property of existing. Things exist; nothing does not exist and has no properties. Not having a property is not a property. — charleton
(I agree in some cases) But.."The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" — Myttenar
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" — Myttenar
And I'm just going to point out here that nothing is, in fact not everywhere. — Myttenar
↪believenothing
"Doesn't that mean you are implying that at least in some places there is an absence of nothing?"
Well yes obviously, every place where something exists that is not nothing.. — Myttenar
"I believe an error is made when the idea of 0 is being regarded as a quantifiable object instead of a frame of reference." — Myttenar
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.