[T]here may be no ultimate reason for existence; it may be that reality is a brute fact. — Ø implies everything

This is entailed by "nothingness is impossible" (i.e. there cannot be not-something), no?

Sure. Nothingness is inconceivable by definition. We can't demonstrate that there was ever 'nothing'.

Why is there something rather than nothing is one of the Christian/Muslim apologist's favorite standbys. It is meant to provide an irresistible inference to god. More sophisticated apologists now just ask, why is there sentient life?

.. there may be no ultimate reason for existence; it may be that reality is a brute fact. — Ø implies everything

People find this aesthetically unattractive and insist on more pleasing stories. I came to this view as a small child and all that I've seen and read has not led me to an alternative narrative.

This is entailed by "nothingness is impossible" (i.e. there cannot be not-something), no? — 180 Proof

This inference is only valid if one assumes there is something to begin with, which makes it a circular argument.

People find this aesthetically unattractive and insist on more pleasing stories. I came to this view as a small child and all that I've seen and read has not led me to an alternative narrative. — Tom Storm

I am of the view that there is no "normal" reason for reality, but there is a reason for why there must be no reason. Thus, with this belief, there is a meta-reason for why reality exists. I do not want to spoil anything more, but this gives you the general picture. Is this contrary to your beliefs, or specification of them?

I am of the view that there is no "normal" reason for reality, but there is a reason for why there must be no reason. — Ø implies everything

I struggle with these sports of sentences. What does it mean?

In general, I don't think humans have the capacity to understand reality beyond certain parameters. What we can do is generate ideas that are of use and appeal aesthetically. We can prevent suffering. We can work together. Beyond that...

I struggle with these sports of sentences. What does it mean? — Tom Storm

There's a meta-reason for reality. Okay, as for non-meta-reasons for reality; what options are there? There's reason 1, reason 2, etc., and then there is the option of there being no reason.

Now, this last option is true, and if we left it at that, reality would be a brute fact in every sense (and also paradoxical I believe). However, there's more to it. You see, there is a reason for why this last option is true. A reason for a reason, or the lack thereof, is a meta-reason; so, we now have meta-reason for reality. But what is the reason for this? Well, that would be some self-referential reason. I think one could formulate this ultimate self-referential reason in such a way so as to include the meta-reason, though in order to make the full explanation as clear as possible, I think it is prudent to separate them.

Now, that's all very non-specific and might thus be of very little value to you. However, my more concrete ideas are at this point too undeveloped for it to be productive for me to elaborate.

In general, I don't think humans have the capacity to understand reality beyond certain parameters. — Tom Storm

It could be I agree, depending on the exact meaning of your statement. There are parts of reality that must be understandable in order to allow for any certitude, and I believe (because I am optimistic) that certitude regarding non-trivial matters is attainable. Without this certitude, everything of value is lost to the absurdity of absolute skepticism. How can I know something is good for me if I don't even know I exist? Of course, one could make the conscious choice to not give a damn about the technicalities and roll the boulder anyways, and this might be what I have to resort to if my project fails.

Absolute nothingness is most definitely impossible — Ø implies everything

What about the interior of the empty set? Non-syntactically speaking. But physically, there are fields everywhere inundating empty space.

I think my argument can be simplified to this:

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something. — Ø implies everything

Simplified? You're kidding. Convoluted, it appears to have philosophical substance. Does it really?

Your assertion seems unwarranted to me.

Now, this last option is true, and if we left it at that, reality would be a brute fact in every sense (and also paradoxical I believe). However, there's more to it. You see, there is a reason for why this last option is true. A reason for a reason, or the lack thereof, is a meta-reason; so, we now have meta-reason for reality. But what is the reason for this? Well, that would be some self-referential reason. I think one could formulate this ultimate self-referential reason in such a way so as to include the meta-reason, though in order to make the full explanation as clear as possible, I think it is prudent to separate them. — Ø implies everything

I have no idea what any of this means. Sorry. This may well be on me.

Without this certitude, everything of value is lost to the absurdity of absolute skepticism — Ø implies everything

No one is arguing for absolute skepticism.

How can I know something is good for me if I don't even know I exist? — Ø implies everything

Is anyone arguing this?

one could make the conscious choice to not give a damn about the technicalities and roll the boulder anyways, and this might be what I have to resort to if my project fails. — Ø implies everything

This is my choice. I'm not sure if I subscribe entirely to absurdity and the Sisyphus metaphor, but it has more going for it (in my assessment) than religion or abstract metaphysical speculations.

No one is arguing for absolute skepticism. — Tom Storm

Is anyone arguing this? — Tom Storm

My response was not argumentative, it was a monologue. I was simply explaining my motivation, I was not explaining why anyone was wrong.

I have no idea what any of this means. Sorry. This may well be on me. — Tom Storm

The passage was so non-specific that there is not much meaning to be had, so it is more on me. I believe the passage is meaningful to people who are thinking about the same kinds of things I am currently, as there's a context in which the non-specificity collapses into something quite concrete. If you are not dabbling too much in these topics, then it is only natural that it didn't ring any bells, so have no worries :)

:up:

The empty set (and thus its interior) is a thing, for it has a definition. It is not absolute nothingness.

But physically, there are fields everywhere inundating empty space. — jgill

That is self-contradictory. The space is not empty if there are fields in it. These kinds of retorts seem to rise from a confusion of exactly how absolute the absolute nothingness is. We are talking "about" the inexistence of anything definable and undefinable; the inexistence of absolutely everything.

How so?

To be clear, I am not arguing that its possible no thing exists. The argument only shows why the current impossibility of absolute nothingness does not single-handedly explain why there is something. The reason is that absolute nothingness is only impossible during the existence of something, so the question of why there is something to begin with remains.

That said, the impossibility of absolute nothingness is still helpful. You see, absolute nothingness does not hold candidacy for being reality. As said, it is either self-contradictory (whenever something exists to give it thinghood), or it is not self-contradictory (in the event there is no thing), but thus also actually inexistent (and thus not reality). However, the fact that absolute nothingness is not a candidate for reality does not mean there is A candidate for reality; for why must there be a reality at all? Why cannot there be an inexistent non-reality of nothingness?

So, what I have shown is that the impossibility of absolute nothingness does not entail there must be something, but it removes absolute nothingness from the competition. Thus, to explain why there is something, one must merely explain why something is a candidate. Since absolute nothingness is not a candidate, showing that something is a candidate means, by process of elimination, that something must be reality.

It may seem like I am splitting hairs or being a madman, but I believe this is the only way to logically approach the issue.

In Hume's view, "Absolute Nothingness" is an empty concept, which denotes nothing.

Hume wrote in his Treaties, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

I might agree. True absolute nothingness, that is, absolute nothingness without anything to give it meaning, "is" an empty concept. That is, true absolute nothingness denotes nothing, for there is nothing to denote, nor is there any denotation either.

Absolute nothing with something to give it meaning is, instead, an oxymoron. It is not an empty concept, but it is an illogical one.

Hume wrote in his Treatise... — Corvus

Interesting to note that the criticism also applies to his book. Not for nothing is Hume sometimes called 'the godfather of positivism'.

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something.

All you've succeeded in doing is making the grammatical point that if there is something then there is not nothing.

Writing "absolute" in front of "nothing" only serves to obfuscate.

Absolute nothingness is most definitely impossible — Ø implies everything

But physically, there are fields everywhere inundating empty space. — jgill

That is self-contradictory. The space is not empty if there are fields in it. These kinds of retorts seem to rise from a confusion of exactly how absolute the absolute nothingness is. We are talking "about" the inexistence of anything definable and undefinable; the inexistence of absolutely everything. — Ø implies everything

I was offering support for your position. I'm old but not that senile. :roll:

However, I think you make an empty mountain out of a philosophical molehill.

Why is there something rather than nothing? — Ø implies everything

"Something" and "nothing" are words. As only words that are part of a pair (more or less) have any use in language - hot/cold, up/down, sense/nonsense, good/bad - the fact that a word exists in language assumes it has a counterpart - something/nothing. If a word had no counterpart, it wouldn't be part of language in the first place.

IE, the reason there is "something" is that it has the counterpart "nothing". In other words, as Derrida might have said "vive la différence".

Having said that, it exists as you wrote it down.  It exists on its own as a concept without meaning or denotation. 

If it didn't exist, you couldn't have thought of it, or typed it up. And if you will, the meaning of "Absolute Nothing" is an abstract concept which has no meaning, and no denotation.  It could have other meanings, if a group of people agreed to give their own meanings to the concept.

Before the thread was made up, it didn't exist. When the thread was opened, and the word was typed, it exists on the screen in the thread - I can read it :) .  According to Wittgenstein, meanings are dead before use. When they get used, they get born and are alive ... something like that in the Blue Book.

It doesn't exist in the external world, but it does exist in one's mind, and on the paper, and computer screen, as you write it down. Is it the "Absolute Nothingness" you meant? or did you have something else in mind?

Interesting to note that the criticism also applies to his book. Not for nothing is Hume sometimes called 'the godfather of positivism'. — Wayfarer

Yes, interesting indeed. Do you have the quotes from Hume's works?

If a word had no counterpart, it wouldn't be part of language in the first place. — RussellA

What are the counterpart words for "car", "book" and "Coca Cola"?

Do you have the quotes from Hume's works? — Corvus

What I meant was that if you read the quoted passage “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask....", it actually applies to Hume's treatise itself! In other words, according to his own criterion, his book should also be 'committed to the flames'.

I studied a unit in David Hume as an undergraduate. The lecturer used to compare Hume's philosophy to the fabled uroboros, the snake that eats itself.



'The hardest part', he would say, 'is the last bite'.

:lol: :ok: :fire:

What are the counterpart words for "car", "book" and "Coca Cola"? — Corvus

For Derrida, the meaning of a word derives from how it contrasts with other related words.

In this instance "car" contrasts with bicycle, train and pedestrian. "Book" contrasts with film, ebook and radio. "Coca Cola" contrasts with orange juice, Pepsi Cola and water.

From the Britannica article on Jacques Derrida
Building on theories of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, Derrida coined the term différance, meaning both a difference and an act of deferring, to characterize the way in which linguistic meaning is created rather than given. For Derrida as for Saussure, the meaning of a word is a function of the distinctive contrasts it displays with other, related meanings. Because each word depends for its meaning on the meanings of other words, it follows that the meaning of a word is never fully “present” to us, as it would be if meanings were the same as ideas or intentions; instead it is endlessly “deferred” in an infinitely long chain of meanings. Derrida expresses this idea by saying that meaning is created by the “play” of differences between words—a play that is “limitless,” “infinite,” and “indefinite.”

There is a table in front of me. On the left there is not a unicorn and on the right there is not something.

As there is no logical necessity that a word such as "unicorn" refers to a thing that exists outside of language, there is also no logical necessity that a word such as "something" also refers to a thing that exists outside of language.

Regarding the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", as we know that "something" and "nothing" exist in language, but cannot know whether something and nothing exist outside of language, our reply can only be in terms of language and not in terms of what may or may not exist outside language.

Thanks for your reply on the counterpart words for those words.   This is a new way to view the words for me. I will mull them over.  

I think the abstract words are definitely in the world of language, but they can also be in one's mind i.e. as psychological states or events.

For example "absolute nothingness" can be described as a psychological state prior to someone's birth, if he believed in the existence of soul separate from his body.  The consciousness part of the soul of the person before birth would be "absolute nothingness".

  Or if one believed in one's own consciousness in the soul after one's death, then would be "absolute nothingness".

Or if there was a book on the desk this morning. You saw it there lying on the desk. But when you saw the desk when you returned home from the town after few hours of errands, it has gone. There is nothing on the desk.

Someone might have moved it to the other room, but you don't know which room, or if it had been actually moved by someone, or was it dropped into a box underneath the desk, or actually you don't recall what has been happened or done to it. Only thing you recall is that you saw the book on the desk this morning.

At that moment, in your mind, you have the feeling or perception of "absolute nothingness" about the existence of the book.

Regarding the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", as we know that "something" and "nothing" exist in language, but cannot know whether something and nothing exist outside of language, our reply can only be in terms of language and not in terms of what may or may not exist outside language. — RussellA

Let's ignore language or communicating with others. Do you think it's possible for an existent to perceive 'nothing?' internally? If god was an existent that was eternal self-aware mind with intent, then how would it be able to perceive nothing or experience 'nothing' or personal non-existence?
I don't think it could, I think such IS impossible and thus such a god cannot be omniscient or omnipotent.
Hard solipsism is unfalsifiable, but so is the existence of nothing. For me, the concept of 'nothing' suggests that the process of 'universe' coming into existence, and then ending via something like heat death via entropy, suggests an eternal cycle, like suggested by Penrose's CCC. If I try to go anywhere else, my brain again just displays a big 'brain off' switch.

Absolute nothingness is only impossible from the perspective of something

It's that "only" that makes all the trouble. It suggests that there is a perspective of absolute nothingness that we have overlooked all this time. It doesn't come right out and say so, but it would be uncontroversial if it were phrased, "Absolute nothingness is impossible from any perspective." We could all nod and move on.

"Absolute nothingness is impossible from any perspective." We could all nod and move on. — unenlightened

I am not claiming absolute nothingness is possible from its own perspective; only that it is not impossible. It is not possible either. It isn't anything, nor is anything else. That's the problem. Our arguments for why there must be something presuppose there is something. Now, there happens to be something, so therefore there must be something. But that still leaves the question unanswered.

I was offering support for your position. — jgill

I don't see how. You seemed to offer a counter-example to my claim that absolute nothingness is impossible.