For what it's worth, like a mathematician, I see no difference between existence and logical consistency and so I regard both these concepts as one and the same. Then the sentence "No object exists" can be reformulated as "No object is logically consistent", which is evidently and necessarily false. There are plenty of logically consistent objects; every object that is identical to itself is logically consistent and therefore exists (as opposed to, for example, the famous "square circle", which is a circle that is not a circle, a logically inconsistent and therefore nonexistent object). — litewave

Interesting perspective, but how did everything start? In the beginning, if we perhaps had a state of pure being, then anything would have been logically consistent. But then everything would have popped into existence simultaneously, and contradictions would have arisen. How did the universe remove these contradictions? How did it choose one thing over the other? The purely logical donkey, when faced with two equally voluptuous hay stacks, starves to death. In that case, there must be a paralogical (but not illogical) prime will, a lá God? Someone who chooses when logic cannot (or will not, by virtue of being a stubborn donkey, of course).

Do you know of Nishida Kitaro? — Gregory

I do not know of Nishida, but I read a little up on him. According to this SEP article, he is perhaps where you got your idea of nothingness as creative. I wonder how absolute nothingness can be anything and do anything.

I read the title.
I'm heading to Hegel. The whole 'nothing requires something' seems totally incoherent. This thread may be illuminating.

If anyone wants to give me footnotes/cliff notes, i'll take 'em :)

Interesting.

The "nothingness" of God is "nothingness through excellence” (nihil per excellentiam) or nihil per infinitatem (“nothingness on account of infinity"). This is "nothing" because nothing can be said of It; God transcends everything. Any positive statement is limiting and thus inappropriate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, a claim like “God is red” must be false, because it would assert that “God is not not-red”, which would be a limitation of his infinite content, right?

But then we also have the nothing of non-existence, “nothing through privation” (nihil per privationem). At first glance, it seems to me like you are dealing with the latter (privational nothingness) in the OP, but upon further consideration, it becomes hard to say. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is indeed what I thought I was talking about, and I still think it is, but I think I might have to reflect on that.

This third category you mention; it refers to objects that although may be the immediate cause of new states, are not defined as the creators thereof, because in this terminology, creation is being the first or second cause of something? So, there’s one first cause (God), and then a few second causes, and everything else, although partaking as immediate causes, are not defined as creators. Am I getting this right?

I would just recommend reading @Count Timothy von Icarus first comment to this thread, and then I would recommend reading my reply to it. I cannot vouch for the correctness of my reply, but perhaps its wrongness is illuminating. I hope that Count replies with some confirmations or corrections, so watch out for that too.

I read your OP from 2 years ago. I think you would do well by either distinguishing logical necessitation from temporally-extended causation, or by proving them one and the same. If not, it becomes hard to judge what you count as the first cause; is it the collection of logical laws requiring the first state, or the first state itself?

hmm, what other perspective is there than "from something"...? In absence of anything/everything, speaking of perspectives doesn't make much sense... — jorndoe

See here.

I am simply saying the lack proof for the necessity of the existence of something; that is, we lack proof that reality is not a brute fact. — Ø implies everything

:up: :up:

I read your OP from 2 years ago. — Ø implies everything

If you would like to discuss there, I gladly will. I make a rule not to derail other people's threads. However, I did take this as an invitation to read your OP, which I did!

If absolute nothingness is a thing, it would entail its own non-existence, which would mean absolute nothingness would be true and untrue at the same time: a contradiction. — Ø implies everything

I like this approach. However, isn't logic the best assessment of reality that we have? Absolute nothingness itself is not impossible. Logic is a tool we use to grasp reality. If there were absolute nothingness, there would be no logic, thus no contradictions to reality.

Fortunately, as long as there are thinking things like us, there is logic, and we can definitely assert that there is something, because if there wasn't, we wouldn't be here to claim it. As to whether its possible that one day there might be absolutely nothing, who knows? No one will be around to find out what its like.

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

We can say that right now, absolute nothingness is not the state of reality. But it says nothing about whether it could or could not be in the future. Nice post.

The whole 'nothing requires something' seems totally incoherent. This thread may be illuminating. — AmadeusD

Perhaps it will lead to an unusual strategy for the courtroom for you. If so, let me know and I will fly to NZ for the occasion.

If you would like to discuss there, I gladly will. I make a rule not to derail other people's threads. — Philosophim

I understand, I might write a few pieces. As you rightly pointed out a while ago, I think our threads are very much connected. If a self-sufficient, ultimate cause was determined, then that would negate the worries my argument produces of reality being a brute fact (to some, this is not a worry but rather something worthy of celebration; I like to direct those people to the nearest boulder-and-hill setup).

However, isn't logic the best assessment of reality that we have? — Philosophim

I don't see why you mention that with an however. Did my post seem to argue against that?

I don't quite get your argument, but what you wrote in the quote is wrong. Absolute nothingness is oxymoronic because of the existence of something. Remove everything, and suddenly absolute nothingness is no longer oxymoronic, because absolute nothingness is nothing. — Ø implies everything

I totally forgot about this thread. Nice to hear back from you.

A thing is something that can be referred to, by whatever means, be they perceptual, emotive or conceptual. A conceptual reference is defining something. Therefore, the state that is absolute nothingness is a thing, by virtue of being referred to by its definition. Its definition is formalized further down.

EE is the set of all propositions true for some corresponding state; a complete description of that state. If a proposition PP is true in EE, we have that [P]∈E[P]∈E.

AA is the set corresponding to the state of absolute nothingness. The definition of AA is as follows: A=∅A=∅. That means for all propositions PP, we have that P∉AP∉A.

Contradiction:

(A=∅)∧([A=∅]∈A)(A=∅)∧([A=∅]∈A)

So, done deal? We have proved why something must exist, right? Well, look above you; what do you see? Something. Let's denote that something as CC; that is, CC denotes the proposition above.

Now, we know that CC is true, by virtue of simple logic. However, if AA truly was instantiated... Well:

C∉A — Ø implies everything

I feel your arguments seem to be still unsound. It starts from the wrong premises. When you say "absolute nothingness", you cannot even make up a proposition and assign it to an empty set. For example, I have a cookie tin here. It used to have some cookies in it. I can make a proposition A= "The tin has 3 different type of cookies." A = {C,M,T}
When all the cookies are eaten up, the tin is empty. Now A = { }

But when you say "absolute nothingness", you don't even have the tin. You don't have anything to make up a proposition. Absolute nothingness means brutely there is not even you, or the world.Hence the proposition is unthinkable. Is it possible to think about such state or a concept?

If you say, that it is possible, then it was not "absolute nothingness" you were talking about by definition, but something totally different from what I have been thinking about for "absolute nothingness". If you say, no it is not possible to even think about it, then it is a self-contradiction. Microphone over to you.

Absolute nothingness means brutely there is not even you, or the world.Hence the proposition is unthinkable. Is it possible to think about such state or a concept? — Corvus

This is a fine and important point, and I am still developing my intuition and logic in regards to this. But in short, absolute nothingness is a thing which has a mutative essence; that is, its essence is dependent on things beyond it; things that may change. This mutation has two versions; the current, oxymoronic version (a version which can be referred to, as evidenced by this thread), and the hypothetically instantiated version, which cannot be referred to. You might think that the hypothetical instantiated version is precisely the reference, but no, it is not. You see, a prerequisite to referring to something instantiated is for it to be instantiated; if it is not instantiated, I am merely referring to a hypotehtical.

The difference is the same as the difference of the following scenarios: I have in mind an actual, instantiated cow (1), versus, I am looking at an actual, instantiated cow (2). Both of these are separate from merely the thing that is a cow (3), which as a thing is a category. (1) is a hypothetical item (not a category), and (2) is an instantiated item (not a category). Notice that (1) is asserting the cow to be instantiated, but this assertion is merely that; hypotheticality combined with instantiation equals hypotheticality; just like a negative number times a positive numbers equals a negative number.

Now, the essence of a specific cow does not change whether it is hypothetical or not (although one's apprehension of it does change). But some things undergo an essential difference when referred to as a hypothetical, and when referred to as an instantiation; they are mutative, as I call them. This is because their essences have variables in them, and these variables happen to change as a result of the thing's instantiation.

So, an example? Well, here's an abstract example that very straight-forwardly exemplifies the nature of having an essence vary according to its instantiation:

The instantiation counter is an object that counts the number of instantiations in reality. A part of its essence is thus that it displays some number n. Whenever that object is hypothetical (like right now), that number is n, but if it ever were instantiated, that very event would change the number n. Now of course, this object, if instantiated, would undergo a change of its essence; the number n, whatever it was, would turn to n + 1. Its essence is therefore dependent on its own (and other things') instantiation. It is therefore mutative.

Absolute nothingness is one of these things. Its essence, that is, its definition and the list of all attributes it holds (like oxymoronity) is something that would change in the event of its instantiation. More specifically, its essence would go from being what it is right now, to being absolutely nothing. So yes, you are correct that the instantiated version of absolutely nothing cannot be referred to; not even with this sentence am I referring to it, because although I am specifying it as instantiated, it is nonetheless evidently hypothetical. And as already established, hypotheticality times actuality equals hypotheticality.

We are taking advantage of this mutative nature of absolute nothingness by referring to its hypothetical version and using the symbol thereof to argue about the consequences (more precisely, the lack thereof) of the instantiated version.

I hope this cleared a few things up. I am looking to formalize my framework of actuality and hypotheticality being used here, so maybe this will be clearer in the future.

But then everything would have popped into existence simultaneously, and contradictions would have arisen. How did the universe remove these contradictions? How did it choose one thing over the other? — Ø implies everything

In mathematics all logically consistent objects exist simultaneously and there is no contradiction.

The purely logical donkey, when faced with two equally voluptuous hay stacks, starves to death. — Ø implies everything

So what? There is nothing logically inconsistent about starving to death.

Perhaps it will lead to an unusual strategy for the courtroom for you. If so, let me know and I will fly to NZ for the occasion. — jgill

The implication has missed me, I'm sorry :P

Aye aye. Thank you.

Absolute nothingness is most definitely impossible — Ø implies everything

Absolute nothingness is impossible for us to comprehend. This marks a limit to human understanding. That there always was and always will be something is not something that we can know.

Can something come from nothing? We cannot understand how that could be, but what can happen is not dependent on our understanding or lack of understanding.

And, of course, this tells us nothing about nothing.

Absolute nothingness... — Fooloso4

It's more like "democratic chalk", a mere concatenation of words, with the folk hereabouts puzzling over what it might mean; as if meaning were something that was discovered rather than decided.

The implication has missed me, I'm sorry :P — AmadeusD

That, in a courtroom case, you might construct a convincing argument arising out of nothing. :smile:

Ah! I see. That does seem the MO. lol

Are these rules of the mind that we are examining or rule of the universe? The SEP articles on Hegel speak of those who interpret the philosopher normatively and those who are ontologist interpreters. Just like with the debates that Jordan Peterson has ignited, there are those for whom the world is simply and soley scientific but who believe philosophy to straighten out their souls. It's not so much whether being or nothing is "out there" in a Platonic sense. It's that these discussions can quell the insistent desire to know. Then you can find being or nothing or anything you like. Hegel's "pure being" is neither actual nor potential but instead completely conceptual because we can't hold it in our minds without losing it to pure (absolute) nothingness. They dialect themselves back and forth further and further into the horizon until they are sublated back *to your* moment of contemplation abd you see what is empirically before as true reality

I hope this cleared a few things up. I am looking to formalize my framework of actuality and hypotheticality being used here, so maybe this will be clearer in the future. — Ø implies everything

If you could define the concept "absolute" and "nothingness" separately, then it would help for getting more concrete perspectives on "absolute nothingness" i.e. as a combined idea.

After the process, the first thing we could ask or clarify is whether absolute nothingness is an entity or concept which stands on its own. If it is, then does it have any attributes or properties associated with it?

If not, then is it something that emerged from some other entities, concept or existence? .. so on.

In mathematics all logically consistent objects exist simultaneously and there is no contradiction. — litewave

Sure, but in the real world, a banana and an apple cannot exist with their centers overlapping. So, if the first moment in time is perhaps reality reduced to its most fundamental, undetermined and universal substance, then I would think that every possible object (including its implementation) would be logically consistent, and thus everything would happen in the next moment. But everything happening simultaneously everywhere is not logically consistent.

So what? There is nothing logically inconsistent about starving to death. — litewave

The donkey's starvation is a metaphor for the universe's inability to choose, even though it has to, just like the donkey has to eat.

We cannot understand how that could be, but what can happen is not dependent on our understanding or lack of understanding. — Fooloso4

This is a very typical view, and a respectable one. We are just monkeys that are not designed to see the truth, right?

I think our perception is definitely geared towards survival and just that, allowing truth to peer through mostly when it is evolutionarily beneficial.

But cognition is a different beast. Our minds require a kind of isomorphism to reality in order to allow for logic, which is necessary for survival. This logic is of course overriden by emotions and heuristics, but whenever we can sustain our logical thinking for long enough, we can use it to build ever more complicated mirrors of reality, extending their domain of validity. I believe it is possible, otherwise I would not try. This logic-thingamabob has gotten us to the moon, after all.

It's more like "democratic chalk", a mere concatenation of words, with the folk hereabouts puzzling over what it might mean; as if meaning were something that was discovered rather than decided. — Banno

Definitions are indeed decided, but the implications therefrom are discovered.

And absolute nothingness is one of those funny things that, like a square circle, are self-contradictory, yet that self-contradiction is not of relevance to the discussion. And we can talk of a square circle. We might not tie it to any percept, nor believe in its existence in any shape or form beyond mere reference and definition, but it is nonetheless something we can talk of. It just so happens that it is pretty irrelevant to most things, beyond being an epitome of self-contradiction. Absolute nothingness is not irrelevant, however, because it happens to refer to the very thing that would delete its own self-contradiction.

Hegel's "pure being" is neither actual nor potential but instead completely conceptual because we can't hold it in our minds without losing it to pure (absolute) nothingness. — Gregory

I am not so sure if it is only conceptual. I believe it is also perceptual, though not in a way that allows for anything beyond immediate experience. The second you've experienced it, it is gone. But you still experienced. How can you experience something specific, without first experiencing it as just something? Before I see a car, I see something. Only after determination does it become more and more semblant of a car; before that determination, it is pure being.

If I try to approach pure being directly, it is as you say, replaced with pure nothing, which goes back to pure being, etc... until I suddenly think of something specific, replacing both of them.

Well, nothingness is absence.

And by absolute, I mean, without non-universal reference.

So, absolute nothingness is the absence of everything, as opposed to relative nothingness, or specific nothingness, which is the absence of something specified, like the nothingness of the book of my bed.

Absolute nothingness does have attributes, among which is oxymoronity. These attributes, as I have said, would disappear if absolute nothingness was ever instantiated.

Sure, but in the real world, a banana and an apple cannot exist with their centers overlapping. — Ø implies everything

Because such a world would be logically inconsistent, with respect to the laws that characterize its structure. So I state again: all logically consistent objects exist because there is no difference between logical consistency and existence.

Because such a world would be logically inconsistent, with respect to the laws that characterize its structure. — litewave

Okay, let me take this step-by-step:

1. First moment in time, there is just being (I don't claim you believe this, but you have to deny it).
2. For this moment in time, due to the lack of any laws or anything specific, it would be logically consistent that a banana spawns at coordinates x,y,z.
3. By the same logic, it would also be logically consistent that an apple spawns at coordinates x,y,z.

So, in the next moment in time, what happens? Do both spawn? Well, each spawning is separately consistent, but together, they are inconsistent. So, there's two possibilities:

Possibility A:

In the second moment of time, everything happens, and contradictions are everywhere. Reality then removes all contradictions by removing one half of each contradictory pair.

Possibility B:

In the second moment of time, only one half of these contradictory pairs spawns to begin with.

Both possibilities require paralogical/alogical arbitration. How can one logically choose whether the banana or the apple gets to spawn/remain at coordinates x,y,z?

All I am saying is, your view IF combined with the idea that reality starts of with pure being, would entail a paralogical arbiter. That's all I'm saying; I am not saying that is wrong or implausible, I am simply trying to elaborate your view.

Our minds require a kind of isomorphism to reality in order to allow for logic, which is necessary for survival. — Ø implies everything

If logic is necessary for survival then other animals require it as well.

Isomorphism to reality is not necessary for survival either. We respond to what we see and hear, but this need not be what we think it is in order to pursue or avoid it. By the time we determine that it is not a snake and not a stick it may be too late.