1. We define (N)othing as the complement of the set of anything (that exists), so N = ∅. — Pippen
Russell's paradox is no problem since I don't talk about the set of everything, but the set of everything that exists. That's a huge difference. — Pippen
I also wonder if my proof could just start to define Nothingness as just the empty set. Why bother? — Pippen
1) By definition my set contains only things that exist (non-contradictory). That excludes Russell's set. No Russell's set, no problem. In other words this set is defined like: containing everything that does not lead to a contradiction somehow. It should be clear that such a set is clean of problems by definition alone, don't u think? — Pippen
2) I think nothing has to be the empty set very naturally since otherwise only sets with members could be available that obviously couldn't serve as nothingness. — Pippen
3. You are right that the empty set is itself a thing and just basically postulated. But as I wrote in my note: that's how we have to interpret nothingness, there's no better way. — Pippen
We simply cannot postualte a further-going nothingness since it would lead to contradictions/falseness. What we mean when refering to "nothing" is the empty set — Pippen
(or e.g. in logic the conjunction ~p1 & ~p2 & ...), that's "our" nothing, — Pippen
beyond that is just a brainf*ck that doesn't mean anything, — Pippen
just like when we talk about the universal set that SEEMS alright but isn't (as Russell showed). — Pippen
2. We assume N and only N. (= ex nihilo)
3. We assume (hypothetically) some (existing) object. (creatio ex nihilo) — Pippen
not sure the concept of an absence of something occupying some specific space, in some specific time is any less meaningful than the concept of something occupying some specific space at some specific time. — Rank Amateur
Well your proof is busted there as Russell's paradox shows that there is no set of all sets. So there is no "set of anything," by which I understand you to mean the set of everything. There is no set of everything. If there was we could form its subset defined by the set of everything that's not a member of itself. That subset both is and isn't a member of itself. Contradiction, hence there is no set of all sets, hence no set of "everything" and no set of "anything that exists." — fishfry
So where does it all come from? — unenlightened
I visualized the universe erupting out of nothing as a quantum fluctuation and I realized that it was possible that it explained the critical density of the universe. — Edward Tryon
Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly, if you point is “nothing” has no physical presence, I agree- but I don’t think that is any kind of important concept — Rank Amateur
Guess the question would be does the space between objects exist. — Rank Amateur
You have to add nothing to the building blocks; walls, floors, and ceilings of a house in order for space to create rooms. — Christoffer
I can't tell you how much that language bothers me. — Marchesk
I hold to my own absolute truth: no cunning arrangement of words can oblige things to be thus and not so. — unenlightened
Shall we we say that 'coming from' already presumes space and time? — unenlightened
That sounds like a really weird way to phrase building a house. But okay, you're creating space for rooms. It's only nothing in the context of it not being building material. There's still air, hopefully. — Marchesk
Is it not still a room even if space in between is a vacuum, not even with quantum particles? Does a room need air to be a room? — Christoffer
How do you define nothing? — Christoffer
If you define that space as having properties, but if there are no properties to that space, isn't it then nothing? — Christoffer
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.