:up: It seems to me that nothing is an incoherent concept. At the very least "nothing" contains information about itself as nothingness, so its not nothing. Of course such a situation can not exist as information is always attached to something.

I guess what you are getting at is that consciousness cannot be immaterial , and normally I would agree. BUT quantum entanglement, tunneling, superposition, and uncertainty are not really what we normally understand to be material, and patterns of these are likely to play a role in consciousness. Perhaps they require their own category to enable us to articulate this situation a little better.

Nothing, as it is generally used, often has a context in which it can be contrasted to and therefore defined. Ex: I spent all my life's savings on cheap beer and and even cheaper women, and now I have nothing! Or, I got drunk and forgot to renew my insurance policy and also left the oven on, my house was destroyed and I now have nothing! Etc.

Nothing could exist in theory. Perhaps in a vacuum devoid of all gases. Though, if you insist darkness being the absent of light is in fact something, perhaps nothing is unobtainable. How encouraging. :)

Nothing is a very clear concept. Is the lack of something. What you describe is not nothing. If it has information, it has something, so it is something and, therefore, is not nothing. Nothing is not real and/or material, it is a mathematical concept. Also commonly mistaken for what it is not knowned.

I guess what you are getting at is that consciousness cannot be immaterial , and normally I would agree. BUT quantum entanglement, tunneling, superposition, and uncertainty are not really what we normally understand to be material, and patterns of these are likely to play a role in consciousness. Perhaps they require their own category to enable us to articulate this situation a little better. — Pop

I think our concept of materiality, or more specifically, the presumed dichotomy between mind and matter, is archaic, given everything we have discovered about the nature of reality. The post is a kind of syllogism. with the conclusion left open to emphasize the way that thought "Fills in the gaps" in our symbolic presentations; thought is more than just information. Everyone brings a different interpretive context to any statement they read. For me, the conjunction of ex nihilo nihil fit and cogito ergo sum is compelling.

I have problems with cogito ergo sum; both the means by which Descartes arrives at this conclusion, and its implications. Firstly, its radical skepticism that suffers from Occam's Razor. To doubt that the external world, and even his physical body exist, because perhaps, a demon may be deceiving him is unreasonable, not least because - it implies a much more complex explanation than the apparent reality; and as Occam asserts, "the simplest adequate explanation is the best."

Having posited unreasonable premises, Descartes cannot proceed toward a reasonable conclusion. Clearly, Descartes does have a physical body, and the external world does exist, so cogito ergo sum does not follow; or, it invokes the unreasonable conditions of its birth in every moment.

This leads to my second problem; that cogito ergo sum is invoked free of this unreasonable context in support of subjectivist philosophies - as if, in reality, the only thing of which we can be certain is our subjective experience. It seems to me, had Descartes thrust his hand into the fire - rather than a ball of wax, he would have become suddenly and painfully aware of the existence of his physical body and an objective reality; an awareness that would be prior to "cogito" in its undeniable urgency.

Nothing is a very clear concept. Is the lack of something. — Helder Afonso

A lack of anything. Everything lacks something. My dog lacks a tail.

To doubt that the external world, and even his physical body exist, because perhaps, a demon may be deceiving him is unreasonable, not least because - it implies a much more complex explanation than the apparent reality; — counterpunch

And yet, today, as computer technology describes, the "brain-in-a-vat" hypothesis (which is what Descartes' deceptive demon amounts to) is more plausible than ever. I think it was just an excellent metaphor symbolizing the type of doubt Descartes wanted to describe.

So I don't think it was an unreasonable premise. I think it was an accurate depiction of a subjective experience, translated into publicity.

Nothing is a very clear concept. Is the lack of something. — Helder Afonso


A lack of anything. Everything lacks something. My dog lacks a tail. — Kenosha Kid

Well, you would have to nit-pick! :cool:

Well, you would have to nit-pick! :cool: — jgill

To be exact, I don't *have* to, I just *want* to.



:rofl:

Is that you in the physics lab explaining quantum entanglement?

You have my attention.

I think our concept of materiality, or more specifically, the presumed dichotomy between mind and matter, is archaic, given everything we have discovered about the nature of reality — Pantagruel

I agree totally.

Everyone brings a different interpretive context to any statement they read. For me, the conjunction of ex nihilo nihil fit and cogito ergo sum is compelling. — Pantagruel

I agree again regarding the interpretation, but please elaborate a little regarding your conclusions..

For me, the conjunction of a universe biased to self organize, and Capra's unit of cognition contain the emotion and cognition elements necessary for a model of consciousness, long before life arose.

I agree again regarding the interpretation, but please elaborate a little regarding your conclusions.

For me, the conjunction of a universe biased to self organize, and Capra's unit of cognition contain the emotion and cognition elements necessary for a model of consciousness, long before life arose — Pop

Strictly from the primitive ontological statements I infer/intuit the continuity of consciousness with some kind of historical consciousness that preceded this "phase" and some kind of future consciousness that will follow. Without being too explicit about the nature of that more "expansive" consciousness. Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose.

Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose. — Pantagruel

A lineage of consciousness / life? Who can deny it? It has long been the view in Yogic logic, and in biology we are a vehicle for DNA. It dose take some guts though, to step out of the comfort zone of the prevailing dogma and state one's best understanding - I can relate to that.

Perhaps everything that can be, is. Because there is nothing to stop it. Therefore both nothingness and existence are possible and existence wins out because it is the only other option and there is nothing to stop it from being.

Nothing comes from nothing. — Pantagruel

Yet...

Consciousness is not nothing — Pantagruel

So consciousness must be in the class of things that you took account of to deduce that "Nothing comes from nothing".

If not, then how have you reached your premise despite knowingly excluding some 'things' from your gathering of evidence?

If so, then you already knew the answer beforehand, why the charade of investigation?

If not, then how have you reached your premise despite knowingly excluding some 'things' from your gathering of evidence? — Isaac

What did I exclude?

What did I exclude? — Pantagruel

Consciousness.

You either knew all along that it didn't come from nothing, or your premise "nothing comes from nothing" is speculative because there exists a known thing whose origin is unknown.

As an example. I can't say "all swans are black" and use it to conclude that some new swan I've never seen before must be black. Simply by virtue of there being a new swan I've never seen before, I've rendered my "all swans..." premise over confident at best.

You cannot say that for all things they do not come from nothing and use it to conclude that some thing whose origin is unknown must therefore not come from nothing. At best you must conclude there exist things whose origin you don't know and as such any conclusion about the origin of "all things..." cannot be properly established.

What did I exclude?
— Pantagruel

Consciousness.

You either knew all along that it didn't come from nothing, or your premise "nothing comes from nothing" is speculative because there exists a known thing whose origin is unknown. — Isaac

Actually the final premise was cogito ergo sum. So far from excluding consciousness, it was (is) integral to the argument.

Actually the final premise was cogito ergo sum. So far from excluding consciousness, it was (is) integral to the argument. — Pantagruel

I was referring to your first premise, as I had hoped was made clear by me quoting your first premise.

I was referring to your first premise, as I had hoped was made clear by me quoting your first premise. — Isaac

Well, a premise contains what it contains, so saying that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't refer to consciousness is like say quid pro quo doesn't tell you what is being exchanged.

Ex nihilo nihil fit is intuitively, logically, and scientifically satisfying.

Well, a premise contains what it contains, so saying that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't refer to consciousness is like say quid pro quo doesn't tell you what is being exchanged. — Pantagruel

That doesn't make any sense. Quid pro quo isn't about what's being exchanged, so we woudn't expect it to tell us. Ex nihilo nihil fit is about {all the things}, so we'd expect it to tell us about one of the things. Consciousness of one of the things in {all the things}, so any conclusion drawn from {all the things} must include consciousness.

Ex nihilo nihil fit is intuitively, logically, and scientifically satisfying. — Pantagruel

Firstly, if something's being intuitively satisfying is a measure of it's adpotion, then why not just introspect about the question at hand and see what conclusion is intuitively satisfying? Why the song and dance going through all these post hoc rationalisations?

Secondly, how can Ex nihilo nihil fit possibly be scientifically satisfying? We've just established that there are things the origin of which you don't know, so what is satisfying about a theory the postulates nothing comes from nothing?

https://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/dark-energy-the-energy-of-nothing

Quid pro quo isn't about what's being exchanged, so we woudn't expect it to tell us. Ex nihilo nihil fit is about {all the things}, so we'd expect it to tell us about one of the things. — Isaac

They are both generalizations. This, that. Something, nothing. Your categorization seems spurious to me Isaac.

Secondly, how can Ex nihilo nihil fit possibly be scientifically satisfying? We've just established that there are things the origin of which you don't know, so what is satisfying about a theory the postulates nothing comes from nothing? — Isaac

If something comes from nothing you have to begin with nothing. And for nothing to become something there must be an impulse within nothing. But nothing with potency or an internal catalyst or impulse, is not nothing because there is already something in it.

Nothing comes from nothing.
Nothing becomes nothing.
Consciousness is not nothing (cogito ergo sum).
Ergo... — Pantagruel

Ergo...consciousness enjoys eternal existence but the catch is only in a backward sense and not forward in time. Things can go out of existence. something can become nothing even though nothing can't become something.

My two cents worth.

But can nothing even be? Consciousness can become something less complex perhaps.
But becoming nothing seems to ring my intuition alarm.

But can nothing even be? Consciousness can become something less complex perhaps.
But becoming nothing seems to ring my intuition alarm. — DoppyTheElv

My grandmother passed away 12 years ago.

They are both generalizations. This, that. Something, nothing. — Pantagruel

So you're saying that the properties of a generalised set can be used to infer the properties of any member of that set simply by virtue of its membership? Seems rather a weak argument to me. If I were to say "this elephant has a trunk because elephants generally have trunks" I think you'd be hesitant to agree.

So why is it any different when you say "this thing (consciousness) came from something because things generally come from something"?

for nothing to become something there must be an impulse within nothing. — EnPassant

You know this how?

So you're saying that the properties of a generalised set can be used to infer the properties of any member of that set simply by virtue of its membership? — Isaac

No, I never made that claim anywhere. I said that ex nihilo nihil fit doesn't explicitly refer to consciousness, nor should it, that isn't it's role in the syllogism. I'm not going to repeat myself a fourth time. If you don't like the structure of the argument that's fine. Nevertheless, that is my argument, and it is the basic form of a syllogism, general premise, specific premise.

You know this how? — Isaac

Anything else is illogical. Nothingness cannot have anything in it. Nothingness is not even an 'it'. If there is something happening in nothingness, there is something, not nothingness. Nothingness cannot have potency because potency is something.