I hear that existence came from "nothing", but I've also heard that it is part of a vast assortment of other universes in a conglomeration known as the "multiverse". Some scientists even postulate that there are "parallel universes" where you and I have other versions of ourselves that have made alternate choices in life, possibly every version of ourselves having been carried out. — chiknsld
The real question is when did understanding, that which we call understanding, perhaps consciousness of existence come into.. coherence? — Outlander
Germs and other single-celled organisms no doubt exist on other extraterrestrial terrains. They produce, mingle (perhaps?), and also die. It's a multi-faceted question. Why is our idea of consciousness in vocal and visual communication any less rich than theirs simply because we cannot perceive it? — Outlander
Kant argues that "existence" is not a predicate (re: criticism of Descartes' & Leibniz's ontological arguments for the existence of god).The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God? — chiknsld
What caused causality "to be"? :chin:What caused existence to be, and why?
They're "important to ask" only insofar as "such questions" yield more probative, precise, less speculative questions.Is it even important to ask such questions?
That's where I put my vote, based on not much of anything. It's not begging the question at all, it's saying the question is meaningless. — T Clark
And so, asking the predicate of existence, and the answer being "something was always here" is in a sense merely a begging of the question, and at the very least an infinite regression. — chiknsld
What caused causality "to be"? — 180 Proof
What caused existence to be, and why? — chiknsld
What caused causality "to be"? "Existence fails to be" (or "existence cannot be") is a self-contradiction like "nonexistence exists". — 180 Proof
Also, the only answer to the (ultimate) "why" question which does not precipitate an infinite regress is that There Is No Why. — 180 Proof
Is it even important to ask such questions? — chiknsld
They're "important to ask" only insofar as "such questions" yield more probative, precise, less speculative questions. — 180 Proof
Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction: it is asking for what existed without existence. Therefore, "existence was caused by nothing" is just as much of a logical contradiction as "existence was caused by something". Nothing can be posited that isn't engulfed in the universal reference of "being", and, consequently, it is not possible to actually posit the question "what is the predicate of existence": it can be uttered, but nevertheless references something causing something under the universal spatial (and "being") reference. Even "nothing" itself is referencing existence, but merely an existence most absent of all things (i.e. a spatial references with absolute minimal things contained in it). I can nor could I fathom whatever an "actual nothingness" would be because I am simply cogitating a concept of "nothingness" as without something (i.e. zero apples is simply a reference, still to existence, of something that can't be identified with "apples"). And the reason I am able to even assert (and contemplate) "true nothingness" or "actual nothingness" is simply due to my ability to conceptually combine concepts together: "actual" implies that something isn't what I deem "fake", and when I concatenate that to "nothingness" (the absence of as much as fathomable) I get a false hope that I have somehow achieved some other concept than "nothingness" ("nothingness" as itself, apart from all illusions)(that I could "actually" conceive, even partially due to the very utterance, "nothing"). "Nothing itself" (just like "true nothingness") is no more than the concatenation of concepts that produces a fallacious belief in producing a new concept. For example, "what is outside of space?" produces an illusion that I have somehow achieved a question that suggests something beyond space, but really I have conjoined the concept of "space" with my concept of "outside" (which is spatially referencing). What really is being posited in "what is outside of space?" is a spatial framework under the universal spatial reference that may be distinct from yet another spatial framework (i.e. "outside"): thereby getting no closer to even fathoming anything beyond space (and "beyond space" is subject to the same critique). — Bob Ross
Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.
I appreciate your response. Although I may just be misunderstanding the article you referenced, it seems as though they are disputing time being that of 4D (and positing it as apart of 3D), not that time is "separate" in the sense of time being truly separate from "space" altogether:
Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.
In terms of what I said in my post, I don't find anything wrong with positing time "in a 3D space".
Hypothetically (just in case I misunderstood the article), let's say they were arguing for a time which is "outside of space" (or "beyond space"), then I think it would be subject to the same critique I made in my original post.
It also depends on what you are referring to by "space". I am not considering it in the sense of "outer space", "string theory", "special relativity", etc (although they are really interesting and worthy considerations): I am referring to the universal spatial reference of everything (including "everything" itself"). Which I think physicists tend to be more interested in distinctions of "space" under the uniform, inevitable spatial reference (which, to be honest, I think they should be: they're profession is science not philosophy). — Bob Ross
There's a logical difficulty that appears insurmountable in your question.
Given any answer, you wold be quite justified in asking why that answer, rather than some other. So for example if someone says that the universe was sneezed from the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure you might well ask where the Great Green Arkleseizure came from.
And that process applies to any answer you receive.
Like answering the proverbial three-year-old, eventually one ends up saying "just because'. — Banno
I'd go a step further and say that they are unanswerable; that they are non-questions. There simply are things that are taken as granted. — Banno
But much of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and much of religion, consists in attempting to provide inevitably wrong answers.
Better to be silent than to be wrong or to talk nonsense. — Banno
Absolutely! You have it right, it's just that ever since Einstein described time as a fourth dimensional property, time was seen as something existing outside of the 3 dimensions we currently live in. :smile:
The article is merely stating that they are trying to prove that time can be used as a measurement within 3-d space. Nevertheless, time would still be separate from space whether in a fourth dimension or as a measurement.
I guess my larger point to your contention (Physics experiments aside :)) regarding notions of "nothing", and things that do not have a cause, self-creation, etc., is that such descriptions are actually possible.
Just because something cannot exist does not mean it cannot be described.
Sure, we can accept that the universe was always here, but it will still lead to very difficult questions to be answered.
It must be said that "nothing" is far easier than "something". For nothing to exist there is no friction, no energy that need be applied, no mathematics, no logic, no suffering, no agony, no dismay, no death and destruction, no moral arguments, no restitution nor justice. There needn't be any struggle for survival, betrayal, striving for immortality, fighting against the odds...there would merely be nothing. Nothing is far easier. It is the highest paradigm of Occam's razor.
Why need there be something when there can be nothing?
Certainly we are not here to just accept it all. I mean, plenty of people do, and that works out just fine for them. But to have a brain and be surrounded by countless inanimate matter, in an environment where we seem to be the pinnacle of intelligence, we are thus obligated to question how we got here and why.
Providing the sound principle of "Occam's razor" we must admit that something is far harder than nothing.
And if this is not the case, then what is it that is stopping nothing from existing?
If we are the power that defeats nothing then we must be the power that creates inquiry.
In terms of what we've been discussing (which it is a great discussion by the way!), I have no problem with either postulations (it being outside of 3D or within it), as my main point is that both postulations have no bearing on my assertion. — Bob Ross
They would both still be conjectures that are under the uniform spatial reference. It could very well be that I am missing something, so please feel free to point it out if you think I am misunderstanding (: — Bob Ross
Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction... — Bob Ross
...it is asking for what existed without existence... — Bob Ross
Therefore, "existence was caused by nothing" is just as much of a logical contradiction as "existence was caused by something". — Bob Ross
Nothing can be posited that isn't engulfed in the universal reference of "being"... — Bob Ross
Even "nothing" itself is referencing existence... — Bob Ross
...merely an existence most absent of all things (i.e. a spatial references with absolute minimal things contained in it). — Bob Ross
I can nor could I fathom whatever an "actual nothingness" would be because I am simply cogitating a concept of "nothingness" as without something (i.e. zero apples is simply a reference, still to existence, of something that can't be identified with "apples") — Bob Ross
And the reason I am able to even assert (and contemplate) "true nothingness" or "actual nothingness" is simply due to my ability to conceptually combine concepts together: "actual" implies that something isn't what I deem "fake", and when I concatenate that to "nothingness" (the absence of as much as fathomable) I get a false hope that I have somehow achieved some other concept than "nothingness" ("nothingness" as itself, apart from all illusions)(that I could "actually" conceive, even partially due to the very utterance, "nothing"). "Nothing itself" (just like "true nothingness") is no more than the concatenation of concepts that produces a fallacious belief in producing a new concept. For example, "what is outside of space?" produces an illusion that I have somehow achieved a question that suggests something beyond space, but really I have conjoined the concept of "space" with my concept of "outside" (which is spatially referencing). What really is being posited in "what is outside of space?" is a spatial framework under the universal spatial reference that may be distinct from yet another spatial framework (i.e. "outside"): thereby getting no closer to even fathoming anything beyond space (and "beyond space" is subject to the same critique) — Bob Ross
The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God? — chiknsld
Kant argues that "existence" is not a predicate (re: criticism of Descartes' & Leibniz's ontological arguments for the existence of god). — 180 Proof
Read K's argument (critique). It's meta-ontological, not merely logical or grammatical.Yep, that's what Kant claims, but is it true? — Agent Smith
Read K's argument (critique). It's meta-ontological, not merely logical or grammatical. — 180 Proof
You need a free logic to parse such an oddity. A free logic includes a first-order existential predicate: E!.
Note that "all cows exist" is not true; the cow that jumped over the moon does not exist.
What's happening? The logic is forcing us to be clear about what we mean when we say something exists - it is insisting on our being consistent.
Note also that, that something exists cannot be the conclusion of an argument in free logic. So it will not serve to show that, for example, god exists. — Banno
Disclaimer:
Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks!
Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).
Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)
Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)
Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?
Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.
As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.
You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).
And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by.
For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door.
The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).
This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.
"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.
"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)
Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)
This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.
Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)
It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?
Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something.
And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!
Disclaimer:
Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks!
I appreciate the disclaimer, but I would like to assure you that I will always read your posts in their entirety before making any assertions: I would not be giving you nor your ideas the proper respect it deserves if I didn't. You can always expect this of me, and if I fall short then you have permission to slap me through the internet (:
That being said, I am going to respond in chronological order (I find it easier that way), but if that is an issue just let me know and I can try a different approach.
Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).
Yes, I think you are right here: I would be positing the combination of both.
Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)
Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)
I understand that it is silly, when posited in the manner I did, to ask such a question: but that is my point. When you state "Asking for a predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place", I think you are thereby conceding that whatever created existence exists prior to existence. Now, you may be referring to maybe a different underlying meaning for "existence" for the creator vs the creation (so two different meanings for "to exist"), but nevertheless they would both be underneath the universal "being" reference (but you talk about this later on, so more on that later).
Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?
I am not sure how in depth to explicate here (so feel free to inquire more in you would like), but I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"), which, for me, has no relation "the external world" specifically. My imaginations exist. My thoughts exist. However, it exists only insofar as it is not contradicted. For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn, but does not exist as a concreto in "the external world". Still exists, just abstractly. I think we (as in humanity) like to make meaningful distinctions between a unicorn "existing" in the sense of in my head and in the so called "real world", but both are engulfed by the ever present, unescapable "existence". Colloquially, for example, people may argue that "unicorns don't exist"; however, as you are probably already gathering, I would say that they are referring to a concept of "existence" under the holistic concept of existence. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.
Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.
This is just a side note, but I honestly don't think Physicists (for example, Lawrence Krauss) are actually referring to "true nothingness", but an altered version (especially in Krauss' case: he just can't seem to grasp that he isn't solving the philosophical dilemma pertaining to such because he is not defining nothing in the same manner).
As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.
Very interesting! I don't think, as of now, I agree (I don't think it is a conflation). It may be, however, that we aren't referring to the same "logic" (semantically), but if something is non-logical it is illogical. In turn, something that is illogical is irrational. But to dive into that, let's take your example:
You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).
You know me too well already (that's another debate) (:. But all joking aside, I first want to explicate back to you what I think you mean by "illogical" vs "non-logical" (so you can correct me if I am wrong). "illogical" is that which is violated during the process of "logical inquiry", whereas "non-logical", which is where I am not clearly seeing the definition, is when something doesn't directly violate "logic" but, rather, is simply something that lacks "logic" altogether. Did I understand that correctly?
I think that (to keep it brief) something is "logical" if it is not contradicted and something is "illogical" if it is contradicted. "non-logic", in the sense of an absence of "logic", is subject to the same critique as before: it is only our logical derivation of what the negation of logic would be. Maybe if you explain it in further detail I can respond more adequately, but I don't see when something could be non-logical.
In terms of solipsism, I want to separate two claims that are typically made therein: we have no good reasons to believe other people are subjects and we are the only subject. The former I have no problem with (and actually agree), the latter is a leap (a giant leap). The latter is where solipsists get into trouble, and that's where the contradictions arise. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) you are positing solipsism as an example of something we don't hold, but nevertheless can't be dis-proven (logically): it is dis-proven in the sense of the latter, and proven in the sense of the former. I genuinely don't see how anything pertaining to such was "non-logical".
And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by.
So when I speak of something never surpassing the universal being, spatial, and temporal references, I don't mean "physics". I am perfectly fine, for all intents and purposes, agreeing with you that such a being (if they exist) would have to transcend physics (I don't hold that "physics" or "laws of nature" are synonymous with "logic").
For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door.
If what you mean by this is "physics will fly out the door", then I agree. I do not hold that "logic" flies out the door, as it is utilized to derive everything (including "everything" itself). There's never a point at which I can conclude that I've derived a situation where the principle of noncontradiction is false, because even if I could do that it would be contingent on the principle of noncontradiction in the first place (i.e. this hypothetical situation where pon is false, is contingent on me utilizing that very principle to derive it in the first place).
The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).
I hate to be reiterative, but it blurs lines, I would say, because it is contradictory (albeit not self-evidently contradictory).
This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.
I think that we are utilizing "logic" differently. I have no problem, for all intents and purposes, conceding that an "omniscient entity" would not need to abide by the rules of our physics, because I don't hold "physics" as synonymous with "logic". Imagination abides by logic (I know, it may sound crazy). That doesn't mean that my imagination abides by physics (it definitely doesn't: I can fly on my imagined earth).
"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.
"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)
Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)
This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.
Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)
It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?
I think you are agreeing with me that we cannot conceptualize or fathom "nothing". However, I think you are stilling positing that it somehow exists apart from existence. Would you agree that "nothing" is simply the potential infinite of "deleting" concepts? My point is that that potential infinite would merely, at best, approach the limit of "nothing", and I feel like you are agreeing with me on that. However, that previous sentence is partially wrong, there is no "actual nothing" that is apart from "nothing" as a potential infinite of removals (we aren't approaching "true nothingness").
Likewise, the process of achieving a potential infinite of removals is simply the removal of something from space. That is what I mean by nothing being spatially referenced. Obviously nothing would negate "space": but would it? No. It would negate a conception of a spatial framework under the uniform space. Every attempt to negate "space" would follow that pattern for a potential infinite of times. Do you agree with me on that?
So, to recap, to say that one gets decent at understanding nothing by practicing the deletion of concepts, that is all "nothing" is. There's no "actual nothing" that we are approaching the limit of when we perform such actions.
Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something.
I don't have a problem exploring the practice of the absence (in a potential infinite fashion) of concepts. My point is that "nothing" in the sense of a potential infinite is not the same as positing a "complete negation of everything": that is attempting to achieve something which doesn't exist (an actual infinite of removals). That is recognizing the potential infinite of removals and leaping (in my opinion) to the idea that we are moving towards (approaching in a limit style) "true nothingness".
And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!
Hopefully I cleared up some of the confusion: I agree that we, as something, can explore the concept of a potential infinite of removals, but that's not "true nothing" in the sense of an actual infinite of removals. I would refurbish "true nothing" as simply the former and deny the latter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob — Bob Ross
You are saying that there cannot be a predicate of existence because any answer would entail existence itself? Thus, it would be a contradiction?
In the op, I offer another option, instead of saying that there is a predicate of existence, you could say that existence was always here.
I suppose what I do not understand is, why is it useful to you, to say that the question is illogical?
Are you saying that existence was always here? Or are you only saying that the question is illogical, but ignoring (I do not mean this in an accusatory sense!) the option of an eternal universe?
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.