No, time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime was first claimed to be a substance by the general theory of relativity. It is also confirmed by observation of gravitational wave and lens. — MoK

You are confusing the observation of the wave with time as a substance. Observed motions are not time itself.

Because nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Something is a condition in which at least one thing exists. Therefore, nothing to something is a change as well. — MoK

Nothing is a condition, and something is a condition too. So a condition to a condition means nothing has changed.

No, time is a substance and nothing is a condition in which no thing exists. Therefore, the premise is correct. — MoK

What do you mean by substance? Is it a physical object you can see and touch?

No, nothing is not something. The conclusion also follows from the premises. No time, no change. Time does not exist in nothing. Therefore, nothing to something, that is a change, is not possible. — MoK

Until you clearly define what nothing, something, change and time is, the conclusion is nonsense. The first thing wrong is the concept of time, which doesn't exist in the actual world.

All of the knowledge of the actual world is defined as the stipulated meaning of terms and stipulated relations between terms in an inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology specified as Rudolf Carnap / Montague grammar meaning postulates. The term Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean: Adult(x) & Male(x) & ~Married(x) defined in terms of the constituent parts that comprise it. — PL Olcott

Still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't add any new knowledge or facts into the concept unless it was used with the real world situations or observations.

That would depend on what you mean by the term. As I understand it, it is knowledge gained through some kind of transcendent experience. It is known only to those who have had this experience. Some attempt to bring about this experience in one way or another by an altered state of consciousness. Others claim that it is something that happens to you without regard to what you do. Not ever having had such an experience I cannot evaluate it. I cannot say whether it reveals something about the world or human beings or the individual. I do not know to what extent it is an interpretation of what happens.

The term mystical is also used to mean what lies beyond both experience and explanation, that is to say, beyond knowledge. The arche of existence or that there is anything at all. — Fooloso4

The standard definition of "Esoteric" is very unusual and understood or liked by only a small number of people, especially those with special knowledge:, which suggests intentional hidings of their knowledge into their own circles, societies or cults. Therefore demonstrating the intentionally hidden knowledge for the circle members or initiated followers only to the uninitiated, outsiders or public would be contradicting the meaning of the concept as well as their intentions, gist, purposes and ideas for the esoteric and mystic knowledge.

In general esoteric knowledge is totally different type of knowledge from the general philosophical knowledge in methodology, objects and beliefs, and the main difference being the hidden exclusiveness of the knowledge only for the chosen few.

An analytic expression x is any expression of language verified as completely true (or false) entirely on the basis that x (or ~x) is derived by applying truth preserving operations to other expressions of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing the semantic meaning of terms. — PL Olcott

Problems with analytic expressions are possible tautology. They tend to repeat what is already contained in the subject of the expressions e.g. "A bachelor is an unmarried male." viz. they don't increase or add new knowledge.

Yes, my reaction exactly. The most intriguing thing about this paradox is that a lot of people don't mind reasoning with something that is empty of meaning... Probably because they did not check that it actually has meaning prior entering this logic loop. — Skalidris

An ambiguous statement disguised as a paradox.

If someone claims to have mathematical knowledge it can be demonstrated. Can the same be said of someone who claims to have mystical knowledge?
— Fooloso4
:nerd: :up: — 180 Proof

But Fooloso, wouldn't you agree if mystical knowledge is demonstrated, then it would be no longer a mystical knowledge?

Time is not ontological entity. Time is epistemic entity.

That doesn’t make any sense, unless you are just conveying that time is just the form of experience. — Bob Ross

It says what it means. It is a simple and clear statement which reflects the nature of time. I am not sure if it needs explanation.

□∀M -> □∃T
∃M1t1∃M2t2 →□Ag,T,M

I don’t know what this is supposed to be conveying. — Bob Ross

M = Motion
t = time
Ag = agent

Your pseudo-syllogism doesn’t produce a logical contradiction and, thusly, doesn’t prove the logical impossibility of nothing becoming something. Your argument, in its form (as best as I could infer), is:

P1: T ↔ C
P2: E → C
P3: N → !T → !C
C: E → (C & C!) — Bob Ross

Time is not ontological entity. Time is epistemic entity.
□∀M -> □∃T
∃M1t1∃M2t2 →□Ag,T,M

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

Time doesn't exist in the actual world. Time is a priori condition for perception and experience in Kant, and I believe it is correct. Changes take place totally unrelated to time. Time has nothing to do with changes. Human mind perceives the duration or interval of something starting and ending, and that is all there is to it.

Time is simply a civil contract to say that it is 1 year for the earth to rotate around the sun, and 1 day for the earth to rotate itself to the same point on the geographical location. Without those planetary movements, the time as we know it wouldn't exist at all. It follows that changes don't need time. So we could say that changes generate the perception of time.

P2) Nothing to something is a change — MoK

A change is from something to something else. Why is it nothing to something?

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

An ambiguous statement.  This cannot be accepted as a premise for its ambiguity.  Time is a concept and a priori condition for perception and experience.  Nothing is a concept to denote a state of non-existence.  You must define what "nothing" means before making the statement for consideration.

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3) — MoK

Can nothing be something? Then it can be possible for nothing to something. Hence the conclusion would be wrong. Because "Therefore, nothing which is something is logically possible." would be right.

But if nothing is not something, or if it is a state of non-existence, then the conclusion would be ambiguous, and invalid, because it doesn't clarify what "nothing" is, and it doesn't follow from the premises. There is no necessary logical connection from the premises to conclusion.

Could be, but still does not explain how they had predicted the upcoming solar flares years in the future. — Ege

It must have had been some type of Astrological prediction they had. I don't know the details of the methods, but here is the Wiki article on it.

If 'This sentence is false.” is true, then since it is stating that the sentence is false, if it is actually true that would mean that it is false, and so on.
Language conveys information and I can’t extract relevant information from this sentence, this is why I do not understand why people manage to reason logically with it. — Skalidris

For example, the liar paradox “this sentence is false” simply appears meaningless to me and I do not enter the logic of: If 'This sentence is false.” is true, then since it is stating that the sentence is false, if it is actually true that would mean that it is false, and so on. — Skalidris

The statement is unclear to be true or false. "This sentence" doesn't indicate which sentence it is describing or declaring about. From the statement, it is implied that there must another sentence before it, for the statement to be qualified to conclude "False", but it is not clear, whether it is the case, or "This sentence" means the sentence itself.

If it is the sentence before it, then it is missing, and if it is the sentence itself, then it doesn't indicate why it is false.

Therefore, if someone uttered the statement, it would beg the question, "Which sentence do you mean?"

A "first cause" is "first" in relation to a specific chain. There may be a multitude of different chains. The "first" of one chain may be prior in time to the "first" of another chain. Therefore the assertion "there can be no cause prior to a first cause" is illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: I was going to write the similar content of the post long before, but yes that is the crucial point.

Btw, Wayf, I don't think it's helpful to further conflate, or confuse, philosophy with mysticism (or with woo :sparkle:) — 180 Proof

Truths is knowledge which is usually hidden away from us according to ancient Greek philosophers.
Truth in Greek is Altheia, i.e. something to be revealed from what is hidden.

Hence truths require verification and proof in philosophy. What is obvious and apparent in daily perception are not qualified as truths. In that sense, isn't mysticism usually related to religious sense? You wouldn't say that a sceptic and mystic are the folks whose beliefs are the same kind.

I agree with you that the book's content was very rich, detailed and interesting. It is good that the prediction was wrong. :) It wasn't the book, but the Mayan calculation's fault for the wrong prediction suppose.

It is up to them whatever boundary they set for their perceptual capabilities. But you do notice often, they are in deep confusion with the world, and objects they try to understand, when they get a little abstract.

If there is no other 'world' for us, then there is nothing behind this world of ours, so there is no meta-physics
— Wolfgang
Metaphysics in philosophy is not when you refer to some other world; you can be fully metaphysical even without any reference to any other world. — Angelo Cannata

:up:
Metaphysics is a methodology i.e. the way to look at the world and object, which is "beyond", not apparent and obvious. Metaphysics is not some possible world itself.

I recall having an old paperback book called "2012". In the book, the world was supposed to end in 2012, with all the reasons similar to above they listed in the book, and how the Mayan calculation for the end of the world had been set for the year of 2012.

It would be a matter of drawing the boundaries for one's perception. Some folks thinks that grammar and meanings are all there is in the world, and they reject and deny all other existence on the basis of linguistic criteria. In that case, their perceptual ability would be confined in the boundary they set.

Some folks only accept what they see and hear in the physical world, saying nothing else exist. Then that is their boundary of the perception.

But some folks extend their perceptual scope beyond what they see and hear, and using language and grammar only as tools for their reasoning and understanding the world beyond the vista and physical sensibility looking for the abstract truths, then their perceptual capability extends to metaphysics from epistemology.

People have different epistemology for their own perception, and it is categorised by the boundaries of the perceptual possibility they set for themselves.

Again, our semantics are too different for me to engage in meaningful discussions with you on this particular topic. — javra

OK, that's fair enough. I tried to explain what I think and understand of the concept. As I said, initially it was not a logical concept to me to accept. But after thinking about it second time, it seems actually a very useful concept to further work on. I am glad that I have the concept, and will be further studying the cases, which it could be applied to.

I take it that by "absolute nothingness" one means absolute non-being rather than being which is devoid of things and hence thingness. Nirvana, as one example, is reputed to be devoid of any thingness while yet being, hence not being nothingness. — javra

Again I am not too familiar with Buddhism, but Absolute Nothingness can be a useful resource or concept for the Buddhists for their aim of of meditation in endeavour to achieve the state of Nirvana.

Wiki has some synoptic info on Nirvana "Nirvana is the goal of many Buddhist paths, and marks the soteriological release from worldly suffering and rebirths in saṃsāra.[2][3] Nirvana is part of the Third Truth on "cessation of dukkha" in the Four Noble Truths,[2] and the "summum bonum of Buddhism and goal of the Eightfold Path."[3]"

Nirvana has also been claimed by some scholars to be identical with anatta (non-self) and sunyata (emptiness) states though this is hotly contested by other scholars and practicing monks.[web 1][7][8][9][10] In time, with the development of the Buddhist doctrine, other interpretations were given, such as the absence of the weaving (vana) of activity of the mind,[11] the elimination of desire, and escape from the woods, cq. the five skandhas or aggregates." - Wiki on Nirvana

This makes sense, because Buddhists believe the human sufferings come from the bodily nature and desires of the beings. The only way to achieve the freedom is after the time of the being's death. However, the beings don't want to die just to achieve the freedom from suffering. Instead, they can try to separate their bodies from minds via meditation aiming to achieve the absolute emptiness, viz Absolute Nothingness, which could be construed as the state of body-less with only the mind existing in the actual world.

Not saying, Absolute Nothingness is an officially proved concept for representing all these cases, but certainly it seems a useful concept to keep in one's pocket when thinking or explaining about the abstract objects and concepts in metaphysics, logic, physics or even religious topics.

I made it clear what my background presumption in this respect was. To be clearer: Do you or do you not interpret nothingness as equivalent to non-being in you're arguments, this as I've explicitly stated I so far assume you do (with emphasis on this being an assumption)? Else do you take non-existence to be something other than non-being? If so, how are the two concepts different to you?

There is no one correct answer here. But the answer you provide will have significant baring on how the issue of nothingness is commonly addressed. — javra

I think Absolute Nothingness can be interpreted as a property of Non-being too. Every being is not just a being, but it also encompasses its origin (which is the past of the being), and the future in it. All beings were non-being at one time, but one day and moment, it manifested into a being by some causal conditions either physical or mental.

Every being which is a human does think about the existence prior to their birth, and also the possible existence after their life in the actual world.

Also non-being, absolute non-being can be used for different levels of beliefs in one's own existence.

The current existence as a living being in the actual world would be a being. This is a belief and also a fact.

But when one believes in the existence of past life, and afterlife, then the existence could be named as non-being. One has lived in the past or existed as some other being in the past before birth, but there were changes of the being via change of time, or some event, the being in the past has gone through transformation to non-being. Then the current being has come to existence.

When the current being dies the physical death after the course of life, then the current existence will cease to exist. In that case, what does the being become? A non-being. A non-being is a being that has no physical body, but the soul still intact as a Cartesian substance, being invisible and unable to communicate with the livings due to lack of the bodily existence, but still able to be present in the actual world having all the mental states intact perceiving, knowing and feeling just as a non-being, if one believed in afterlife and has faith in the existence of souls. Concepts of non-being could be useful to attribute the possible existence to it.

If one had absolute no belief in the existence of possible non-beings, then for them their prior existence and afterlife existence would be Absolute Nothingness. It would be something one never experiences in real life, but presumed, or inferred existence. Or non-existence, if one wants to call it. But there is no reason why one cannot call it an existence too.

Because an isolated empty space occurs relative to givens, such as its surroundings, and is thereby not absolute nothingness. (absolute does mean complete without exceptions).

As to the video you've linked to, it seems to me to pose a trick question from the get-go. By the very concept initially specified in the video, an "absolute empty space" (whose very cogency my addressed contention questions) cannot contain a bucket of water, never mind distant galaxies and starts, for the occurrence of any of these things would make it other than an absolute, i.e. a literally complete, empty space. Besides, Newtonian conceptions of absolute space have been debunked some time ago by the theory of relativity, no? — javra

Absolute Nothingness is a useful concept to use in explaining the existence of Absolute space, or relative space which is absolute. A relative space can be made into space which is totally empty with no particles of air, and in total vacuum state could be called an absolute relative space.

It could sound contradictory, but then if we think about the case where we call the planet of venus morning star or evening star depending on when you see it, why not? It is just a matter of widening one's understanding of the concept in conjunction with the object, be it physical or mental nature.

And the distance-less space you mentioned is also quite an interesting concept I feel. Distance is only possible when there are objects in space, or some markers for the measurements to take place between them. In absolute space with no objects in it, distance would not exist or be meaningless.

That's perfectly fine, but I want to point out that my post, or else contention, was in the form of a question, and not in the form of an argument one then can agree with or disagree with: Again, in what sense can space occur, and thereby be, in the complete absence of distance(s) between givens? — javra

I am not very knowledgeable on QM, and QM is not my first interest in my readings, but I feel that for the whole universe to exist, there must have been absolute space first. Without absolute space as absolute nothingness, no physical objects, motions or changes are possible. Time itself is from changes of the objects, hence without space there are no motions, no changes hence no time would be possible either.

Kant was quite right in establishing Space and Time as dual entities in human perception of the world as the precondition for the possibility of experience. Space is definitely physical. It exists outside of the human mind, but it also exists in the mind as a priori condition for visual perception and experience.

Absolute nothingness can be a priori concept which denotes the prior state of the universe before it was born, or the aftermath of existence of the universe, if it ends in some future time as a deduced entity or state, which has been existence and will keep existing through eternity.

A handy concept in your pocket to explain the possible state of the universe before and after its existence.

This "we" which you here reference, they'd be "interested in looking into the ideas were arguments with possibly some evidence" to be provided by me for the way that the term nothingness gets interpreted by you in your arguments? I don't get it.

I made it clear what my background presumption in this respect was. To be clearer: Do you or do you not interpret nothingness as equivalent to non-being in you're arguments, this as I've explicitly stated I so far assume you do (with emphasis on this being an assumption)? Else do you take non-existence to be something other than non-being? If so, how are the two concepts different to you? — javra

First time when I came across the concept "Absolute Nothingness", I was like so many other folks here, it is an illogical concept, doesn't make sense, blah blah and tried to disregard it. But when I thought it more, I found it actually quite an interesting concept. It can be used to cover, or explain many things beyond we take as existence.

As I said in the previous post, that one of the philosophical aims is about widening, deepening and enriching one's perceptual capabilities. The concept like this will help us to achieve that, and it is worthwhile in keep thinking over trying to come up with some logical proof that it can make sense.

I have not thought about the case where Absolute Nothingness can be linked to Absolute Non-being. But I think it is an interesting concept too. More later~

If you say so ... — 180 Proof

Just sayin ... :D

↪Paine Many folks are just intellectually lazy.

Not asking for spoon feeding,
— Corvus — 180 Proof

It sounds like a coward nonsense uttered by a grumpy old man fearing to give answers he claimed to possess, when asked. That itself is laziness. :chin:

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too.
— Corvus
To be a thing is to exist. If you don't understand that, then there's no point discussing further. — Relativist

Please back your statement up by clarifying and defining what "to exist" means.

Philosophy is about being able to see beyond the things existent, widening and deepening your perceptual capabilities. If you limit yourself your perception to the visible physical objects only, then you will not improve your perceptual abilities from the ones of the philosophyless folks just discharging their remaining lifetime in the mundane world. If that is what you opt to do, then it is pity, but I can't help that.

Was just saying to 180 that, it would be better if each folks who read Spinoza and arrived at their own answers could come out into the open public forum to share their own answers. 180 proof sounds he did, so why not do so, was a suggestion.

Ontic= existing. Nothingness is an absence of existence. Nothingness existing is self-contradictory, like married bachelor. — Relativist

Things can be existent, not existent or half existent too. An absence of existence is also an existence.
Every existence has its history of existence. Prior to the existence, it was non existence i.e. an absence of existence. Then there were conditions for the birth of existence, and that is how all existence came to being existence.

A married bachelor is possible logically and in the real world. A bachelor just signed for the marriage certificate in the registry office, but not having gone through the religious ceremony yet is a married bachelor under the eyes of the religious community he belongs.

Reading feeds the historical ideas and concepts on the subject. Reading helps widening your perspectives.

What is an example of an objective system?

Each philosopher requires a lot of effort to hear what is being said. Is "objectivity" being able to answer simple questions without all that work? — Paine

Each of us start from subjective point, but aims to arrive at the objective ideas and concepts which is called truths.

then it sounds like it is not in the realm of the objective system
— Corvus

Philosophy does suck like that sometimes. — Lionino

Philosophy is "Auf dem Weg Sein" according to Heidegger. An existence on the road heading for endless journeys via the dialectic process.

I will have to be honest with you and tell you that I got that information off of the internet. I have not read Spinoza first-hand yet, only read about his philosophy instead from secondary sources, so I can't really say how Spinoza is clearly influenced by Descartes. I am a bit busy these days resting (no joke) and it's not a terribly exciting matter for me, so maybe you could bring us the answer to that question? :smile: — Lionino

Sure, no problems. Take it easy, and enjoy being busy resting. That sounds pretty a good way of life actually. :D

Each reader has to answer that for herself after studying Spinoza (or any other metaphysician) for herself. My spoon-feeding apparently isn't helping you better understand Spinoza's God (i.e. substance/natura naturans (re: reality)). — 180 Proof

Not asking for spoon feeding, but thought it would be nice if you elaborated on the metaphysical suppositions of Spinoza since you have volunteered to decipher on the God concept.
If each reader has to read Spinoza and has to come to their own answers, then it sounds like it is not in the realm of the objective system.

God was happy t
— Corvus

↪Corvus The KJV says 'And God saw the light, that it was good.’ The attribution of emotion is yours. — Wayfarer

The attribution of emotion wasn't mine. I can confirm that I was not there when God was creating the world and light. There was no one around in the vicinity when God saw the light, and felt good. It must have been God who felt good. Not me.

And there are many occasions when God was either happy or angry due to the people's conduct and situation in the bible as far I am aware. Therefore the Christian God in OT was a personified God with humanistic emotions and passions.

I take it that by "absolute nothingness" one means absolute non-being rather than being which is devoid of things and hence thingness. Nirvana, as one example, is reputed to be devoid of any thingness while yet being, hence not being nothingness. — javra

That is an interesting view on Absolute Nothingness. As long as you have arguments with possibly some evidence, we are interested in looking into the ideas.

There are a few possible cases that Absolute Nothingness can be attributed to, from metaphysical, logical, epistemological, physical and even linguistic perspectives. If we look at it from linguistic and logical perspectives, we call the planet venus as morning star or evening star. Then why couldn't you call an isolated empty space as absolute nothingness? Because they share the common qualities for the concepts and existence. Absolute space is also a physical entity demonstrated by Newton in his bucket experiment.

If so, in which sense can space occur, i.e. be, in the absence of any and all distances?:

Distance is always relative to things - even if they're construed to not be material (e.g., the distance between two psyches: two psyches might be very far apart, this being a distance, strictly due to their differing views ... if, that is, one were to not take this example as being purely metaphorical). At any rate, here is my contention:

If there are no things between which there is distance, then there is no occurring distance period. And if there is no occurring distance, I so far fail to see how there can occur any sensible understanding of space. Again, what does distance-less space signify?

(The quantum vacuum state yet has distances between particles that appear out of it and disappear into it, for instance.) — javra

I will think about this point, and get back here for update, if I can come up with any idea either for agreeing or disagreeing. But here is a good article on the topic in SEP.

Nothingness is a concept (not ontic). We formulate it based on other concepts (eg the concept of an empty biscuit tin). Biscuit tins are ontic, but there are no biscuit tins that are truly devoid of contents. That's pure conceptualization without any real world referrent: nothingness is not ontic. — Relativist

Nothingness is a concept, but it is also ontic. Nothingness is the only concept which can be applied to space. Because they share common qualities such as emptiness and invisibility. Nothingness / space is the prior condition for the biscuits to exist in the tin. If the tin had no space (nothingness) in it, and it was filled with full of candies, then you cannot put your cookies in it.

When you say Absolute Nothingness, it would be the space with absolutely nothing in it, not even a particle of air. The total vacuum state of the space can be called Absolute Nothingness.

My point was that a phrase that entails a contradiction cannot have an ontic referrent (i.e. there can exist no object that is described by a contradiction; it is logically impossible). You had said, "And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist". It makes no sense to claim an impossibility has to exist. I think this may get back to your blurring of the conceptual with the ontic. — Relativist

This is wrong assumption. For something to create a contradiction, it must be existence either in the actual world as physical objects or in the propositions. You cannot make a meaningful statement about something, if something was not existent. Because to know something was contradictory, you must have known or perceived the object or concept you are stating about.

You haven't made an empty set, you have conceptualized one. Sure, you can conceptualize nothingness by starting with an empty biscuit tin, then conceptually disregard the air it contains, the quantum fields that exist everywhere, and then ignore the biscuit tin itself. What's left: nothing is left. — Relativist

Yes, that is where nothingness comes from. Therefore the origin of nothingness is external to human mind, not internal to human mind.

If something is impossible, it cannot exist. It is impossible to be simultaneously married and unmarried, so it is impossible for someone to be a married bachelor. — Relativist

But married and unmarried is not existence. They are analytic concepts. But think of this case. For you to make a meaningful statement that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried, you must first exist. If you didn't exist, it is impossible to say that it is impossible for you to be married or unmarried.

Does God have emotions and passions like humans? I would regard that as anthropomorphic projection. — Wayfarer

Have you not read the bible? I recall God saying "Let there be light, and there was a light. God was happy to see the light in the world he created." - The Genesis

Spinoza's substance (i.e. nature or god) is a metaphysical supposition , not an empirical theory. — 180 Proof

So, what does Spinoza's God do for Spinoza or for the rest of us in this planet?

Nothingness is an abstraction mentally constructed from other abstractions: in particular, set theory. It is similar to the concept of an empty set. Empty sets don't exist in the real world: they are defined as sets with no members, while sets are purely conceptual groupings. — Relativist

That cannot be always the case. You can make up an empty set from a biscuit tin, which contain no biscuits. Empty set can be made up from empirical world objects.

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. I
— Corvus
That's self-contradictory. — Relativist

How could something be impossible in the actual world, if it didn't exist?

No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist

Anyhow "Absolute Nothingness" itself must be from external to you, because without the object called "abstract nothingness", how could you have formed the concept inside your mind? Where did it come from? What gave a birth to the concept "Absolute Nothingness"?

You must have known something about it too. If you didn't know anything about it, then how could you deny its existence?

And for something X to be impossible, it must first exist. If it doesn't exist at all, then how could be judged as impossible?