e.g. A donut hole, space within and between every atom of baryonic matter in the observable universe, subsistent objects (Meinong), etc ...

e.g. A donut hole, space within and between every atom of baryonic matter in the observable universe, subsistent objects (Meinong), etc ... — 180 Proof

As I noted before, the answer to all of those is "quantum vacuum." Whether or not that is a good answer is open for discussion.

But will a "quantum vacuum" hold that state perpetually for all time? Or is it a transient state? Can an infinite quantum vacuum exist on the outskirts of the universe for all time and if so, what does that say about nonexistence existing?

But will a "quantum vacuum" hold that state perpetually for all time? Or is it a transient state? Can an infinite quantum vacuum exist on the outskirts of the universe for all time and if so, what does that say about nonexistence existing? — Derrick Huesits

I brought it up because @180 Proof and I discussed it earlier as the answer that always derailed the subject of whether or not there can ever be nothing. To oversimplify - space is permeated by a field of vacuum energy. If you've got space, you've got something, i.e. you don't have nothing.

I wasn't a part of that discussion, is this "vacuum energy" you talk about the same as dark matter or just a related concept?

Either way, the longer I think about this subject the more I notice logic and science go hand-in hand here. Even the string theory, if it is true--would argue that atoms are made up of strands of energy that are in constant motion (take up space and are reliant upon time to do so--a union of the two). Stop time, the strings stop moving, they no longer take up space, thus they no longer exist. The entirety of material existence, you could thus argue, is made up of the union of time (change) and space. Returning to the God-argument, it is intriguing that the Christian concept of God has similarities--God the Father begets the Son, and the union of the two is the Holy spirit. Time begets space, and the union of the two is the material world...

The vacuum is prior to spacetime – an expanding fluctuation – and not merely coterminous with it. The vacuum, though an ostensible object, or factual referent, is not a thing (i.e. a dissipative structure), remember?

The vacuum is prior to spacetime – an expanding fluctuation – and not merely coterminous with it. — 180 Proof

I won't get into an argument about this with you. I'm already walking at the edge of my understanding. On the other hand, when I looked it up, the web says that vacuum energy is semi-sort of the same thing as the cosmological constant, which is associated with spacetime.

From physicists (including Krauss) we might expect ...

◾ The Four Different Meanings Of 'Nothing' To A Scientist (Ethan Siegel; Forbes; May 1, 2020)

^{• a condition where the raw ingredients to create your "something" didn't exist
• nothingness is the void of empty space
• nothingness as the ideal lowest-energy state possible for spacetime
• nothingness only occurs when you remove the entire universe and the laws that govern it}

From (some) philosophers we might expect "nothingness" to express (exhaustive) absence of everything/anything (i.e. by negation), like the missing complement to existence, in some cases anyway. Oddly enough perhaps, this also implies absence of constraints, conservation (physics), etc. Not much to speak of it seems.

◾ Nothingness (Roy Sorensen; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Aug 31, 2017)

More colloquially we might say something like "there's nothing in the drawer", meaning it's empty, ready to be filled. Different from the other uses.

The gospel of anonymous. ¹ Once upon a time there were wobbly relativistic quantum fields, and time was more spacelike. ² Asymptotically, a condition was reached whereby symmetry-breaking and positive expansion came to be. ³ And so the humble beginnings of our universe emerged from edge-free primordial nature.

The variety/ambiguity is best avoided I guess. So, what are talking here anyway?

Non-existence can't exist — Derrick Huesits

The physics here is unnecessary. The sentence above is simply not well-formed.

Go ahead and form it better, I have run through many different sentences in my mind and any sentence discussing nonexistence in general seems to face a strange language breakdown, which I somewhat discuss in the video and I will further discuss in my response to jorndoe.

I mention in the video that there is a distinction between saying something doesn't exist and talking about nonexistence itself. When you say something exists, you refer to it in the material sense as not existing, but by naming it (such as unicorn) we recognize the existence of the idea.

Saying things don't exist in a material way poses no problem, we are just left with space. But space is still a thing, so as long as we only talk the material it poses no issue for us. But when we talk about a total or absolute nothingness, in which space could also not exist, this is when the problems arise. And to be honest, it also poses problems for language as well. The Meriam-Webster definition of nothingness is "the quality or state of being nothing." It is odd to attribute qualities and states of being to that which can have no qualities nor state of being because it is nothing, but language doesn't offer us much choice here. The word itself in many ways seems out of place with every other word, as nothingness or nonexistence makes reference to something that can have no reference to it. This is absolutely a part of the argument, and a part of how I establish certain qualities or attributes must necessarily exist and exist in an eternal sense which combined together begin to look very similar to the long-held notion of God thus pointing to the idea that we could grasp this idea from a purely logical angle.

I should also probably mention, that although the argument begins from physical and scientific position, it is largely meant to be a platform by which to lunge into the metaphysical. I only argue that "absolute nothingness" can't exist, but there is nothing stopping the possibility of material nothingness. But I am unsure of even this last part, things become difficult when you think of multiple planes of existence.

Go ahead and form it better, — Derrick Huesits

My point is the familiar one, that it can't be made well-formed. That is, it is ungrammatical.

Existence can be treated as a second-order predicate, as in ∃(x)f(x); non-existence might be the negation: ~∃(x)f(x). But you would treat non-existence as a property, and then attribute that property to nothing - or something like that.

It's not even a contradiction.

And we are back to the notion it is impossible--grammatically, logically, etc. I am aware of this, and is the basis of the argument. Now, whether I am good at articulating it, that is a whole different question...

we are just left with space. But space is still a thing, so as long as we only talk the material it poses no issue for us. — Derrick Huesits

I used to think space is not a thing like usual physical objects. It is an object but non physical, because it cannot be seen and touched. Space is not nothingness either. As you say, it exists and affects us.

So it is rather a precondition of all the physical objects, which can be classed as a priori object, and its property is emptiness. The problem seems that we only think about either physical objects or nothing.
But there must be non physical objects such as space and time, and they exist as precondition of all the physical objects in the universe.

Time is another non physical object, in that we cannot see, hear or touch, but it exists. It affects us, its property is that it is in non reversible with futuristic motion and it is the precondition of all events in the universe.

Space and time must not be classed as physical object or nothingness. They should be classed as non physical objects, which are a priori, because they are universal and necessary condition for all the objects and events in the universe.

My point is the familiar one, that it can't be made well-formed. That is, it is ungrammatical.

Existence can be treated as a second-order predicate, as in ∃(x)f(x); non-existence might be the negation: ~∃(x)f(x). But you would treat non-existence as a property, and then attribute that property to nothing - or something like that.

It's not even a contradiction. — Banno

:100: :up:

And we are back to the notion it is impossible--grammatically, logically, etc. — Derrick Huesits

No, were are back at illformed; it's not false, it doesn't say anything. So the same goes for any deductions that one attempts to derive from it.

Thanks.

Thanks. — Banno

:nerd: :wink:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If language, philosophy, etc. don't allow for the discussion of absolute nothingness, that says it all right there. I talk about absolute nothingness as being "smaller than infinitesimal" and existing for a time that is "less than instantaneous." This is why it can't be found nor pointed to nor talked about. It doesn't even exist in the plane of ideas, because if it did, it wouldn't be absolute nothingness. Even ideas take up space and time. Even if it is just in the neurons of our brain or data on a computer hard drive.

I should also mention, it isn't the sentence which is the contradiction as much as it is the word itself. Nonexistence is a noun, nouns refer to things. But Nonexistence refers to nothing...

A lot of your problems I tried addressing already in the video I made, the words "exist" and "doesn't exist" operate fine when speaking about the material world. You begin with an existent idea and then point to the tangible world and say that idea isn't manifest in a tangible way. But it isn't absolute nonexistence, because the idea exists. Ideas also take up space, even if that space is in our neurons. It takes up time, thinking about them and talking about them isn't instantaneous. They also have an effect and affect things, otherwise we wouldn't discuss them. So, ideas belong to the realm of existence, so whatever is truly nonexistent can't exist even as an idea.

Your predicate argument can also be used to prove my point. If there can't be absolute nonexistence anywhere, then we need to define whatever it is that fills in all the gaps, and so it is quite convenient to use "exist" as a predicate for something which is infinite and fills in all the gaps which we call "God." Now, I was hoping to establish a more sophisticated argument than that, but if we want to get into the semantics of exist being a predicate that is what I would do.

Non-existence can't exist -so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time — Derrick Huesits

Space-time is being conflated with existence

Itemising the argument in the first part of the OP :
i) there cannot be non-existence - therefore existence is infinite.
ii) space-time = existence
iii) therefore space-time is infinite.

Regarding item ii), space-time is being conflated with existence, rather than existence being a property of space-time.

If existence is a property of space-time, then there can still be existence in the absence of space-time.

In which case, item iii) does not follow. IE, space-time need not be infinite, and if not infinite, then not omnipresent.

Infinity cannot be itself if it fails to account for the absence of itself. Such a failure would render it finite. Same with eternity.

Quite simply, X = X and -X, whether logic likes it or not. And not.

I'm not against your conclusions, and not against your arguments, mostly because there is an oversimplification of my argument which is missing key elements. Perhaps I did myself an injustice by saying "look at this video" instead of writing a novel, but that video was already on my to-do list and got my argument out for criticism.

i) There must BE an infinite existence, but it doesn't mean we must always use the word "existence" in an infinite way. We can still say finite things don't exist.
ii) space-time IS and existing thing, but NOT necessarily and infinite one. I actually argue in the video that it isn't an absolute infinite because it has a finite beginning with the big bang, hence the metaphysical component of the argument is that there must be a greater existence which is infinite across all time.
iii) this one is answered also above ^

Infinity isn't a thing, but a perpetuation of a thing or state of being, a property. In your argument, you treat it as a thing which it is not.

Non-existence can't exist — Derrick Huesits

The term "non-existence" and the concept connected to it are quite tricky when it comes to their usage, as I will show.

I believe that you should first define "non-existence" so that we all have a common reference to discuss about. Because if I have a different meaning for it than yours and other persons responding to this topic, there would be an issue in our communication, wouldn't there?

Also, there are a lot of times in which just examining the definition of a key term in a subject/topic, helps a lot in answering it. Sometimes it can even answer the key question fully! (I have done this quite a few times!).

Now, Oxford LEXICO --which I normally use-- defines "non-existence" as "The fact or state of not existing or not being real or present".

But what a bad luck! It's one of the times that we fall on an inconsistent definition. The word "state" implies clearly existence (= condition in which something is)! So one must certainly remove it, in which case the definition becomes "The fact of not existing or not being real or present". "Fact" however is something that is known or proved to be true. And you cannot apply this to something that does not exist, that is you have no idea about it! How can you?

So, unfortunately, I will have to throw the whole definition to the trash!

On the other hand, I think we are very lucky in the present case! It's not a coincidence that "non-existence" cannot be defined, at least not in a consistent and satisfactory way. The reason is that this term, like a lot of other of similar nature, as a concept implies "absence of anything". And that's all you can say about it. Yet, even it this case, there's some inconsistency, because it involves "any thing", and a thing refers to something that exists! ("Lack of something" is even worse!)
In this sense "non-existence", "nothingness" and "emptiness" are almost synonyms with each other.

I believe that "non-existence" can be only described figuratively, as "Absolute darkness and silence", "Empty space". This desctiption can be applied to both material and immaterial things. "I can see nothing in the dark" means that nothing exists for me under such a condition. "I have no idea about that" means that I have no idea in my mind, my mind is empty as far as that is concerned.

After having said all that, I come back to your statement "Non-existence can't exist". It cannot exist as what? A term/word, a concept, a reality, something physical or non-physical? I believe that you have to clear this.

so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time — Derrick Huesits

How is this --and more specifically "infinity"-- derived from the statement "Non-existence can't exist"? And then, "what directions"? Do you mean everywhare in space?

something which exists carries certain attributes: is affected by things, effects things, takes up space and encompasses time — Derrick Huesits

Well, I think this needs to be worked on grammatically somehow ...

thus, the notion of God can be grasped from a purely logical standpoint — Derrick Huesits

Right. The concept of God (or a Supreme Being) can only be grasped on a purely logical basis. But this is not something new ... On the other hand, I can't see how all the attributes you have mentioned that could be attributed to God are derived from "non-existence".

Anyway, my contribution to the topic was about "non-existence" and I enjoyed that because it was a new subjected for me! :smile: So, thnaks for offering me this opportunity! :smile:

Infinity isn't a thing, but a perpetuation of a thing or state of being, a property. In your argument, you treat it as a thing which it is not. — Derrick Huesits

Doesn't matter how I treat it, as a thing or or state of being or a property. The argument stands. So long as you use the word "it" like you did, the argument stands. It also stands for any not-it that you can conjure up with your best thinking.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading how you came to conclude the word "nonexistence" has the same problems I did, it simply is a concept you can't talk about, and you can't find! Hence, the idea that anywhere you look you find existence, and if you had the power of infinite travel you would still perpetually find existence hence the comment "in all directions." But the part it seems most people here struggle to grasp is the argument isn't purely physical, it is meant to be a metaphysical argument. It is OK for the universe to be finite as long as there is a greater existence within which it dwells and permeates it. For example, there is an entire world of ideas which dwell in our minds, their existence exists within the existence of our bodies. Thus, you could say existence is tiered. Ideas exist within our bodies, our bodies exist within space-time, and space-time exists within ??? (possibly God? this is where the metaphysical argument comes in).

Now, I also agree with you I could better explain how I gain the omni's from all this.

We start with the Eternal component--all time--and work our way from there. You can't say "there was a time when there was nothing." That, simply, wasn't a time. That was nothing, so we can ignore it (humor intended).

i) Omnipresence is infinite presence in all directions. So, one existence without divide that is everywhere.
n. This, alone, doesn't solve the need for infinite existence because "presence" alone isn't a thing, and isn't an existence. It needs to be able to "do" something. "Doing nothing" for an eternity is--begging the question here--pure nothingness. Hence we add in infinite potential and awareness.

ii)Omniscience is infinite awareness in all directions. So, one awareness without divide that is everywhere.
n1. I am purposely defining omniscience using different words than are typical because "knowledge" is a finite word, and adding the word "all" before it doesn't necessarily correct this limitation. The word "aware" is very open-ended and can't be put in a box, so-to-speak.
n2. Omnipresence and omniscience aren't enough to create change, so nothing changes here--we still have infinite nothingness.

iii)Omnipotence--now we add in potential in all directions
n. combined with omnipresence and omniscience change can occur anywhere, in all directions, infinitely. But, even with potential, there still is no "need" for it to occur. My car with a full tank of gas can sit perfectly still in the same spot for a very long time and go nowhere, even with perfect potential to do so. This is where we need the sort of "key and ignition" so-to-speak of this whole machine of existence.

iv)Omnificence--unlimited creativity
n. this concept is reliant upon everything else above, and to say it ever "stops" would be to put a limit on it so it wouldn't be "unlimited" creativity. Thus, this is what keeps the machine of "change" going ad-infinitum. This, ultimately, perpetuates existence and makes it eternal thus it truly goes full-circle from here.