You might find this interesting, in thinking about 'unity of opposites' when it comes to such dialectic reasoning here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

Wasn't Heideggger's entire (uncompleted) task to try to explain what existence even was? You're assuming it's obvious — Gregory

It can question what "exists" means though — Gregory

I'm not assuming anything.

I'm having trouble trying to define "existence" in a way that allows me to say "God exists but isn't perceivable/detectable".

It seems the existing definition of "existence" predicated on detectibility via senses/instruments is dripping with materialism/physicalism. Nonetheless, a less, or non, materialistic definition for "existence" is not a walk in the park. Try it if you don't believe me.

Let's start small. Where no one disagrees is the existence of physical stuff and the reason for this is physical things are perceivable/detectable by everyone. If we do a quick survey of areas where there is disagreement on the issue of existence, e.g. God, you'll come to realize that it's all about whether something can be perceived/detected or not. In other words, like it or not, most of us, if not all, have a materialistic/physical take on existence. The reason for this is clear - we can, well, show physical stuff to [i[others[/i], in an in your face kind of way, leaving no room for doubt.

As we leave or attempt to leave the physical world and begin to entertain non-physical entities, we enter into murky waters. Take unicorns for instance, universally accepted as something nonexistent precisely because they aren't physical but it's hard to shake off the feeling that concepts/ideas - unicorns, thoughts in general - have some kind of existence We could even say that, taking our brains as detectors, our brains perceive/detect such things as ideas/concepts.

Can you see where this is going? We've circled back to a detectibility/perceivability based conception of existence.

:smile: :up:

No exceptions taken! (The concept of nothing is logically necessary, for there to be something.) — 3017amen

This is not really true, because we can consider all sorts of things without considering the possibility of nothing. This is why the concept of zero came rather late in the development of number systems. And being was not properly opposed with not-being until Parmenides presented it in this way. In fact, the proper opposite of "something" is not "nothing". This is because "something" refers to a particular thing, which has not been specified. It is an undetermined thing, something. So the opposite of "something" is a particular thing which has been specified, as this or that particular thing, a determined thing. "Thing" is the subject, and there is no opposite to the subject, only what is predicated has an opposite

I think one way to parse the distinctions would be in an a priori type fashion:

For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.

For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. — 3017amen

OK, so talking this analogy, upward and downward are opposing directions. In the case of "something", it would refer just to "direction", not any particular direction, so there would be no opposite.direction.

Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. — 3017amen

And in comparison to this example, "something" would be like temperature, neither hot nor cold, with no opposite.

And in comparison to this example, "something" would be like temperature, neither hot nor cold, with no opposite — Metaphysician Undercover

I think what you really mean is that" something" would be inclusive of temperature both hot and cold.

, so talking this analogy, upward and downward are opposing directions. In the case of "something", it would refer just to "direction", not any particular direction, so there would be no opposite.direction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Similarly, I think "something" would be inclusive of upward, downward, leftward, rightward, etc.using that comparison.

The more appropriate comparison relates to opposites because something and nothing are diametrically opposed as opposites. Thus direction and misdirection would be analogous.

That's what is meant by simple a priori comparison (semantics/antonyms). We're just using strict definitions from the meaning of words themselves. (Which is in the same spirit as logical necessity/a priori truths.)

Yeah, I'm not much of a fan of the idea of necessary opposites.
It's just not true in general: I don't need an "anti-chair" for the concept of a "chair" to make sense; I can compare a chair to the absence of a chair.
And likewise I don't believe that we need evil for the concept of "good" to make sense, or that whatever is least good we would necessarily call "evil" any more than there needs to be an opposite of an itch, and the most non-itchy I ever feel must be labelled as some discrete concept in itself.

Now, in the case of "nothing" and "something", this might seem to be a distinction without a difference. After all, in this case specifically, [absence of something] = [opposite of something] = nothing.

But the point is, if I find this logic dubious in most cases, I already have reason not to want to apply it here.

; I can compare a chair to the absence of a chair. — Mijin

Correct. Thus chair and no chair. Just like something and nothing.

"anti-chair" — Mijin

Incorrect. See above.

And likewise I don't believe that we need evil for the concept of "good" to make sense, or that whatever is least good we would necessarily call "evil" any more than there needs to be an opposite of an itch, and the most non-itchy I ever feel must be labelled as some discrete concept in itself. — Mijin

It's not that you need the opposites, it's that the opposites are logically necessary for existence of any binary concept. As another example, it is logically necessary to eventually have sadness in the place of happiness. However it doesn't preclude the concept of a middle ground gradient of contentment.

Consider time and relativity. The changes in time, span from temporal time to timelessness by virtue of the speed of light, and any gradient of speed in between.

So the main concept to wrap your head around would be the phenomenon of change. If life was completely static (logically impossible), opposites would not be logically necessary.

I think what you really mean is that" something" would be inclusive of temperature both hot and cold. — 3017amen

No that's not what I meant, because I meant to show a category difference between particular instances of hot or cold, and the general category of temperature. The particular instances of something being hot, or something being cold, would be represented as subjects to which hot and cold are predicated. Since the term "something" references the subject, not what is being predicated, there is no opposite, like there opposition within the predicates, hot and cold. Any attempt to negate the subject is a completely different matter than the negation of a predicate which is a simple opposition.

The more appropriate comparison relates to opposites because something and nothing are diametrically opposed as opposites. — 3017amen

That is what you are asserting, but I think it is wrong, for the reason I'm trying to explain. "Something" indicates that there is an object which can be represented as a subject for predication. Opposition is only a valid logical procedure in reference to the predicate. There is no valid procedure by which the subject can be opposed, or negated. That would be a matter of declining the proposition, but declining the proposition (skepticism, or agnosticism), does not constitute proper opposition. Proper opposition is a feature of predication.

You might claim that if the proposed subject, "something" has no corresponding object, as may be the case with a counterfactual, there is an imaginary subject which is presented as something, then this something is really its opposite, nothing. But that would be incorrect because an imaginary subject is not the opposite of a corresponding subject, and it is obviously not nothing. They are both valid subjects. So, as I say there is no proper way to oppose the subject, only to claim falsity or lack of correspondence, which is not the same as opposition.

That's what is meant by simple a priori comparison (semantics/antonyms). We're just using strict definitions from the meaning of words themselves. (Which is in the same spirit as logical necessity/a priori truths.) — 3017amen

If you would follow strict definitions, you would see that nothing is not the logical opposition of something, as I explained. "Something" represents "an unspecified thing". The opposite of this would be "a specified thing". Clearly "a specified thing" is not nothing. "Nothing" represents "not anything" so the opposite of this would be "anything". "Anything" means "a thing without significance or importance as to which thing". Do you see the difference between "something" and "anything"?

And likewise I don't believe that we need evil for the concept of "good" to make sense, or that whatever is least good we would necessarily call "evil" any more than there needs to be an opposite of an itch, and the most non-itchy I ever feel must be labelled as some discrete concept in itself. — Mijin

I believe Christian theology has attempted to remove evil as the opposition of good. It views all existence (any something) as good, being created by God it is good. It is only through privation from its full potential, that a thing is less than perfect, but less than perfect is still good. This is why traditionally Catholicism focused on love, forgiveness, and confession. Jesus can deliver us from our sins. No matter how far we are from perfection there is still good within us, and that means we're not evil. To leave the realm of "good" we'd have to jump over into the category of non-existent, but it doesn't make sense to say that non-existence is the opposite of existence, because opposites are the extremes within a particular category.

It's not that you need the opposites, it's that the opposites are logically necessary for existence of any binary concept. — 3017amen

Binary concepts are applied as predicates as your examples hot and cold, upward and downward, show. "Something" and "nothing" are not predications. That is your mistake, you are trying to represent them as predications, a binary concept, when they are not.

, as I say there is no proper way to oppose the subject, only to claim falsity or lack of correspondence, which is not the same as opposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

By using a priori logic there is... . It is logically necessary to eventually have sadness in the place of happiness. However its necessity doesn't preclude the concept of a middle ground gradient of contentment. It's just that the opposites are logically necessary for existence of any binary concept.

There is no valid procedure by which the subject can be opposed, or negated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes there is, by virtue of time and change. Consider time and relativity. The changes in time, span from temporal time to timelessness by virtue of the speed of light, and any gradient of speed in between. If life was completely static (logically impossible), opposites would not be logically necessary.

Do you see the difference between "something" and "anything"? — Metaphysician Undercover

'Anything' would be the middle ground within the confines of unity and oneness.

That is your mistake, you are trying to represent them as predications, a binary concept, when they are not. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's no one's mistake. The mistake is time and change itself.(The concept of eternity and timelessness solves the problem... .)

that a thing is less than perfect, but less than perfect is still good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely. The unity of good and evil is equivalent to temporalness and finitude. It's a duality. Or if you prefer existential. My mind wills one thing my heart another.

The first thing to say 3017amen, is that most of your post doesn't even make sense in light of what I posted, that you're ignoring points that I made, or agreeing with me but writing as though you're refuting me. So let's try this again, and please read carefully this time

"anti-chair"
— Mijin

Incorrect. See above. — 3017amen

This is what I mean. What do you mean "incorrect"? I said we don't need an anti-chair and can compare a chair to the absence of a chair. What are you disagreeing with?

It's not that you need the opposites, it's that the opposites are logically necessary for existence of any binary concept. As another example, it is logically necessary to eventually have sadness in the place of happiness. — 3017amen

The point is, that many things, probably most things, do not have a perfect opposite, only their own absence.
An example of something with an exact opposite would be electric charge. We can talk about 3 states; positive charge, its opposite: negative charge, and finally, neutrality; no net charge at all.
Most things are not like this though; we can only talk about 2 states; the phenomenon is present to some degree or it is not.

In terms of psychological examples, I gave the example of itching, as a very obvious example of something without an opposite. You didn't respond to that, so let's go with your example of happiness and sadness.

In terms of "folk psychology" we might consider happiness and sadness to be opposites. After all, the same stimuli might provoke these emotions on a sliding scale; if the value of my company is a value X, then there might be values of X that would make me feel sad, some values of X that I would be ambivalent about and others that might make me happy.

However, in terms of neurology, there's little basis for this idea. Sadness is a whole different pathway in the brain, involving different neurotransmitters and different activation areas. There's no reason in principle a brain couldn't be constructed that could only experience one state and not the other.
Finally, the sliding scale argument falls apart when we consider other candidates for being the opposite of happiness: disappointment, frustration, anger, angst etc...all of these can be on a sliding scale with happiness depending on the stimulus.
And if we were to say that all of these emotions can be bracketed under the umbrella of "sadness" that would only serve to show that it's an extremely crude concept, and not something we can apply formal logic to, and call it the precise opposite of anything.

This is what I mean. What do you mean "incorrect"? I said we don't need an anti-chair and can compare a chair to the absence of a chair. What are you disagreeing with? — Mijin

It's an incorrect analogy for the reasons I stated. Hence; something and anti something.

The point is, that many things, probably most things, do not have a perfect opposite, only their own absence. — Mijin

Correct. The concept from unity of opposites bears that out. And the reality of time and change supports it.

We can talk about 3 states; positive charge, its opposite: negative charge, and finally, neutrality; no net charge at all.
Most things are not like this though; we can only talk about 2 states; the phenomenon is present to some degree or it is not. — Mijin

Correct. That's why nothing is not really nothing. Like mathematics it's a value concept, like zero.

that I would be ambivalent about and others that might make me happy. — Mijin

Ambivalence itself (in concept) would become a homeostasis. Meaning in our context, nothing is not 'really' nothing at all. Otherwise there would be no laws of gravity, no space time, no light, no dark, (no consciousness) etc..

There's no reason in principle a brain couldn't be constructed that could only experience one state and not the other. — Mijin

I love the idea, but it's not logically possible (consciousness tends to seek homeostasis).

It's an incorrect analogy for the reasons I stated. Hence; something and anti something. — 3017amen

It's like if I had said you can't square a circle, and your retort is that the analogy is invalid because you can't square a circle. You are repeating back what I said, as if it's a refutation, and, importantly, ignoring the actual point.

Ambivalence itself (in concept) would become a homeostasis. Meaning in our context, nothing is not 'really' nothing at all. Otherwise there would be no laws of gravity, no space time, no light, no dark, (no consciousness) etc.. — 3017amen

Sorry I don't follow what you're saying. Can you break this down?

I love the idea, but it's not logically possible (consciousness tends to seek homeostasis). — 3017amen

I see no reason to believe the assertion that consciousness seeks homeostasis e.g. There are activities that might give us joy our entire lives...is that a broken consciousness?
But, even if I agreed, I don't see how this would rule out the possibility of a brain that could only experience various levels of sadness + neutrality, or various levels of happiness + neutrality. After all, a consciousness can experience various levels of itchiness + neutrality...there is no opposite to itching.

like if I had said you can't square a circle, and your retort is that the analogy is invalid because you can't square a circle. You are repeating back what I said, as if it's a refutation, and, importantly, ignoring the actual point. — Mijin

Squaring circles would be logically impossible. Maybe this will make better sense:

Chair and anti-chair (your analogy) is the same as saying something and anti-something. And I'm saying that's an incorrect analogy to something and nothing. Please read what I said.

Sorry I don't follow what you're saying. Can you break this down? — Mijin

The point is that the unity of opposites require opposing attributes or properties for their identity and existence. And those opposing attributes or properties require time and change for same (their own existence). Think of it as potential and kinetic energy, if you will.

Both concepts of something and nothing, behind the scenes, have opposite identities or forces of energy.

But the point about equilibrium, in finding an appropriate analogy about the human condition (opposite feelings) and nature, was that while a person can be happy they will eventually be sad, but they can also be content. And so there you have opposites as well as stasis/equilibrium/contentment. Either way, you have energy (consciousness in this case) working behind the scenes through change and time. Nothing is static. The closest thing that comes to it is homeostasis which is the gradient between opposites that you even mention in your last post.

And so taking it another step further relating to our definition of nothing, because everything is dynamic and not static, nothing in reality is not nothing at all, it's just a concept, like zero is a concept. And so I was trying to use the idea ofhomeostasis and equilibrium in nature and in human phenomena as a description of the actual reality of nothing.

In short, you have an a priori definition of nothing, and then you have a natural (a posteriori) definition of nothing.

Even though you don't agree with unity of opposites, did you at least comprehend its meaning?

There are activities that might give us joy our entire lives — Mijin

Activities: requires time and change.
Entire lives: a phrase that implies a static existence, timelessness and eternal.

You with me yet?

I don't see how this would rule out the possibility of a brain that could only experience various levels of sadness + neutrality, or various levels of happiness + neutrality. After all, a consciousness can experience various levels of itchiness + neutrality...there is no opposite to itching. — Mijin

Agree. I don't either. But, once again, itching is not analogous because the concept or semantic definition of itching itself is a predicate verb (in that case). Therefore the opposite of itching is (simply) not itching.

It is logically necessary to eventually have sadness in the place of happiness. — 3017amen

Plato demonstrated that this type of opposition does not apply to emotions. Pleasure is not the opposite of pain, nor is happiness the opposite of sadness. They are distinct emotions, not dependent on each other. He demonstrated this by bringing into the discussion, pleasures which are not a release from pain.

It's just that the opposites are logically necessary for existence of any binary concept. — 3017amen

This may be true, but the point I am making is that these things, something/nothing, happy/sad, are not binary opposites.

Yes there is, by virtue of time and change. Consider time and relativity. The changes in time, span from temporal time to timelessness by virtue of the speed of light, and any gradient of speed in between. If life was completely static (logically impossible), opposites would not be logically necessary. — 3017amen

How is this relevant to the subject?

Plato demonstrated that this type of opposition does not apply to emotions. Pleasure is not the opposite of pain, nor is happiness the opposite of sadness. They are distinct emotions, not dependent on each other. He demonstrated this by bringing into the discussion, pleasures which are not a release from pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

Plato the got many things right his philosophy but unfortunately he wasn't a hundred percent perfect. Unless you are arguing emotions are both a priori and a posteriori, I'm not sure where you are going with that... ?

his may be true, but the point I am making is that these things, something/nothing, happy/sad, are not binary opposites. — Metaphysician Undercover

What are you arguing in favor for... ?

How is this relevant to the subject? — Metaphysician Undercover

That the concept of something and nothing is both static and dynamic.

Squaring circles would be logically impossible. Maybe this will make better sense:

Chair and anti-chair (your analogy) is the same as saying something and anti-something. And I'm saying that's an incorrect analogy to something and nothing. Please read what I said. — 3017amen

"Please read what I said" :smirk:
I'm giving the example of squaring circles as something that is logically impossible. And the example of the anti-chair to illustrate that not everything has an opposite, many (most) things do not have a true opposite, but can be compared to their absence.
So, what part of either analogy is incorrect? What are you disagreeing with?

Activities: requires time and change.
Entire lives: a phrase that implies a static existence, timelessness and eternal.

You with me yet? — 3017amen

This is possibly the least clear thing you've said so far. How is a human lifespan "timeless and eternal"?

But the point about equilibrium, in finding an appropriate analogy about the human condition (opposite feelings) and nature, was that while a person can be happy they will eventually be sad, but they can also be content. And so there you have opposites as well as stasis/equilibrium/contentment. Either way, you have energy (consciousness in this case) working behind the scenes through change and time. Nothing is static. The closest thing that comes to it is homeostasis which is the gradient between opposites that you even mention in your last post. — 3017amen

What you previously said was that consciousness seeks equilibrium, which is a baseless assertion. This new point, that consciousness is not static, I can agree with.
Neither point actually addresses what I was saying; that there is no intrinsic reason why a brain only capable of various levels of sadness or neither sad nor happy is not possible.

Even though you don't agree with unity of opposites, did you at least comprehend its meaning? — 3017amen

I don't get what you mean by it, no. And I don't think it's adding to this discussion; it seems to rely on agreeing to several propositions that I do not, and is not adding clarity.

But, once again, itching is not analogous because the concept or semantic definition of itching itself is a predicate verb (in that case). Therefore the opposite of itching is (simply) not itching. — 3017amen

What's language got to do with it? The simple fact is, brain states don't have opposites (just like chairs don't have an opposite). It's more obvious in the case of itching than sadness, and that's why I used it as an example. But neither has a true opposite.

What's language got to do with it? — Mijin

In English, we have a noun Nothing. But this noun is special, in that really it is a contraction of logical-NOT and thing.
So, for example, the sentence "There's nothing to be afraid of" is not suggesting that we be afraid of 1 thing, and that thing we're referring to as "nothing". It means there are zero things to be afraid of; the set of things to be afraid of is the empty set.---Mijin

Because your foregoing quote asserted same.

What you previously said was that consciousness seeks equilibrium, which is a baseless assertion. — Mijin

You may want to study Homeostasis. You know, cognitive science stuff.

So, what part of either analogy is incorrect? What are you disagreeing with? — Mijin

So, semantically, something and nothing are not opposite's? Chair and anti-chair (your analogy) is the same as saying something and anti-something. And I'm saying that's an incorrect use of terms in comparing the opposites of something and nothing.

This is possibly the least clear thing you've said so far. How is a human lifespan "timeless and eternal"? — Mijin

You said:
There are activities that might give us joy our entire lives
— Mijin

Activities: requires time and change.
Entire lives: a phrase that implies a static existence, timelessness and eternal.

And I'm saying that's impossible by virtue of time, change, stasis, and common sense. Otherwise, you must support some form of eternal psychological nirvana... ?

Because your foregoing quote asserted same. — 3017amen

No it didn't. Again, you aren't reading.
I'm saying that this whole misconception is based on a language issue in English (and other languages that contract "logical not" and "something").

That's the polar opposite of trying to construct a philosophical proposition based on some quirk of the English language, which is what you just did. I'm criticizing such logic.

And I'm saying that's an incorrect use of terms in comparing the opposites of something and nothing. — 3017amen

But I'm not making such a comparison. I am saying that comparing a chair to the absence of a chair is sufficient, and something indeed can be compared to nothing. The point is that we don't need an opposite in the sense of "sadness" and "happiness" (which you considered opposite) or positive and negative. (Implicitly) comparing things to their absence is the normal standard.

Entire lives: a phrase that implies a static existence, timelessness and eternal.

And I'm saying that's impossible by virtue of time, change, stasis, and common sense. Otherwise, you must support some form of eternal psychological nirvana... ? — 3017amen

Once again: a lifetime is not timeless or eternal. It's typically 70-80 years. So I have no idea what you're getting at with this.

No it didn't. Again, you aren't reading.
I'm saying that this whole misconception is based on a language issue in English (and other languages that contract "logical not" and "something").

That's the polar opposite of trying to construct an argument based on language, which is what you just did. — Mijin

And so your point is...? I though we were discussing English language. (To be honest, your OP is poorly written.)

something indeed can be compared to nothing. — Mijin

Okay, what does that mean then?

The point is that we don't need an opposite in the sense of "sadness" and "happiness" (which you considered opposite) or positive and negative. (Implicitly) comparing things to their absence is the normal standard. — Mijin

Yes we do. Otherwise we are static and not dynamic.

Once again: a lifetime is not timeless or eternal. It's typically 70-80 years. So I have no idea what you're getting at with this. — Mijin

Jeeze dude. We're not talking "lifespan" here. We were talking emotions (i.e., physcholocal nirvana). Actually, YOU were talking emotions being static, and I was critiquing them saying they were dynamic.

Be well my friend. You may want to start over with your OP.

I think it is useful

when

arguments in response to why is there something rather than nothing

explain seemingly that the nothing had potentials. It wasn't really nothing.

In a lot of arguments on such subjects, I think people are getting away with calling a something nothing.