First and foremost if one thing exists nothingness does not. Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. — daniel j lavender
What is space then? Is it a thing we can touch and measure? No, its not. Space is 'nothing'. — Philosophim
The only reason we realize they've dispersed is by observed relation to one other. — Philosophim
There is a thing at points, a, b, and c. We can use "things" that we know abstractly to measure a distance. — Philosophim
You've simply created an abstraction in your mind, then believe what you created in your mind must exist as "some thing" in reality. It exists as nothing more than an abstraction in your mind. — Philosophim
For something to stretch, there must be more space between its molecules that bind it together. — Philosophim
Due to this, we can safely state that "space" is not a medium when the absense of space indicates the presence of matter or energy. "Nothingness" is the absence of matter or energy. — Philosophim
To show that "nothing" is "some thing", you would need to demonstrate some existent property that is not matter or energy. No one has been able to do that so far. So until that happens, "nothingness" is real. — Philosophim
There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth… — Philosophim
nothingness around it exists — Philosophim
Just semantics at that point then. — Philosophim
If you're going the route of, "As long as one thing exists, then nothingness around it exists as well in relation to it," yes, that's fine. But its existence is an identity of nothingness we've created. Around that one thing, there is no actual existence. — Philosophim
I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible? — Philosophim
There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence. — daniel j lavender
Purple flying elephants have properties. They're purple, they're elephants, and they fly. But they don't exist. — fishfry
Non-existence doesn't exist by definition therefore existence must always exist?
Ok, I can make the same argument for anything...
Eg. Non-thinking can't exist because by definition it doesn't exist. Therefore there is never non-thinking. — Yohan
Non-God can't exist, therefore there must be a God. — Yohan
So basically, if this argument works to prove existence is always existing, it must also prove that everything that exists always exist, since the existence of their absence is impossible.
Hmm, might actually have some merit. — Yohan
What you're describing is nothingness. Perhaps what you mean though is that space is an ether.
"ether or aether, in physics and astronomy, a hypothetical medium for transmitting light and heat (radiation), filling all unoccupied space; it is also called luminiferous ether."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Non-standard_interpretations_in_modern_physics
This is an old physics theory that fell out of favor years ago once the theory of relativity was created. — Philosophim
Your best bet is the Quantum Vacuum theory.
"Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Even then, note "appear and disappear incredibly quickly" At the moment of disappearance, there is "nothing". Now, it could be argued that there is something smaller or harder to detect, so perhaps we can't say for sure they really "disappeared", but this leaves another problem we've ignored until now, "space between other things". — Philosophim
While yes an atom is composed of neutrons, electrons, and protons, there is space between them. And yes, there are quarks floating in and around, but there is space between those as well. And when we get to the smallest particles appearing and disappearing, there is space there as well. — Philosophim
All things exist. From that it does not follow that existence is all things, as though there is an entity "existence" or "all things" over and above all the things that exist. — Janus
What if the limit is intrinsic to existence? what if it limits itself? — Daniel
I have nothing in my pocket. — Banno
SO what? Things that exist may have quantity or extent; but existence does not have quantity or extent. Individual existents may have duration, but existence? — Banno
If infinity is physical, would the Continuum hypothesis then become a question of physics? And would not physics postdocs then be applying for grants to study the matter? What do you make of the fact that none have so applied as of yet? — fishfry
Ok so when you say "infinite," you mean something other than the mathematical definition.
What then is your definition of infinite? If you just say "unlimited" that doesn't actually tell me anything. — fishfry
Again, the logic has a sort of pseudo-Aristotelian feel. The parsing is improper. — Banno
Existence is not a thing.
Hence, it cannot be subject to the logic reserved for things. It does not have extent, nor duration. — Banno
You said that existence is infinite. We already have an extensive mathematical theory of infinity due to the great set theorists from Cantor to the present. I am asking if their ideas and conceptions of infinity apply to existence, in your opinion. — fishfry
How can we know what is awareness and existence itself if we never been taught of? — javi2541997
Existence is not a thing.
Hence, it cannot be subject to the logic reserved for things. It does not have extent, nor duration. — Banno
But I think we have to bring here Cogito ergo sum.
If we have awareness, we exist.
I guess it is one of the best proofs of human existence. — javi2541997
Would you say that there are countably or uncountably many finite-volume regions of space, and countably or uncountably many finite-duration intervals of time? — fishfry
If infinity is physical, would the Continuum hypothesis then become a question of physics? And would not physics postdocs then be applying for grants to study the matter? What do you make of the fact that none have so applied as of yet? — fishfry
That seems to be in direct contradiction to the definition you provided in your OP — Echarmion
We need to decide whether or not existence is "that which can be or is observed" or "that which exists regardless of observation". We can't just equate objective reality with observed reality unless we have reasons to believe they are one and the same. Do we have such reasons? — Echarmion
How do you know things exist beyond the mountain range if you cannot see them? It seems to me you could only conclude that via induction from other observations. — Echarmion
Sure, something must exist independently of observation. And it could be infinite. But how do we know whether it actually is? — Echarmion
Borders are defined by the change from one attribute to another. What is beyond "observed reality" that serves as it's border? — Echarmion
If existence is based on observation, then the limits of observation are also the limits of existence. These limits are not imposed on existence by us, they are intrinsic to it. — Echarmion
If existence is not based on observation, I.e. it is " objective", then we would need a way to gain information about it that is not observation. What is this method? — Echarmion
This sounds reasonable, but it does not follow. It is not more likely that "objective reality" is infinite because observed reality has no borders. That would imply that observed reality is a part of objective reality, rather than, say, an illusion caused by it. Since we don't know, we cannot draw any inference. — Echarmion
We agree that it has no end, for the reaons stated. — Echarmion
But what are we arguing about, exactly? Existence, as constructed by us through observations, or objective reality? — Echarmion
Existence, as observations, is not limited, it's indefinite. — Echarmion
Is existence a being? — bloodninja
Only beings exist. — bloodninja
Being is not a being however so being cannot exist. — bloodninja
In other words only entities exist and because being is not itself an entity it cannot be said to exist without an ontological confusion occurring.
Perhaps you're equivocating? — bloodninja
we do not have anything substantial to go on for ascertaining why anything exists. You tried making comparisons to thinking things popping into existence being absurd and suggesting it violates conservation of energy. These are facts about things within the existing world, not explanations for why reality exists. — MindForged
My point, which you didn't even attempt to address, was that you haven't given anything like a useful definition of existence. No one is doubting that there are things which exist, what I'm doubting is how you're going about defining that term. — MindForged
It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything. — MindForged
It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything. — MindForged
It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything. — MindForged
Why do you think existence is infinite? — TheMadFool
You are right in the sense that matter and energy follow conservation laws (can neither be created nor destroyed). Is your argument based on this fact? — TheMadFool
But, what if there are a different set of laws governing the beginning of a universe? I'm basing this on the supposed fact that our universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Evidently, there was nothing, neither matter nor energy, before the Big Bang. How do you explain this, Or, are scientists wrong on this one? — TheMadFool
That doesn't explain anything. Is *what*? You're not linking anything to existence here, you're just saying there things which exist and things which don't. You haven't explained what those terms, what those predicates, actually mean. You're simply restating what they entail. — MindForged
But there are things which could not be observed in any way. Unobservables are the obvious examples. We don't interact with them, we postulate them to explain certain data in our best theories. — MindForged
You are doing the exact nonsensical thing I mentioned. People who say there is a first moment of time are not saying there was a state before the first moment and that state was nothing. That's the idiotic assessment of their view. There is no *before* the first moment any more than there is a north of the North Pole. It's just a category mistake, there could not be time before time, "before" is a temporal concept that can only be applied to temporal sequences. No one is suggesting there is a "nothing before" the first moment of time because "nothing" is not a state on pain of contradiction, for a state is itself something. It's saying there wasn't anything because there couldn't be.
You are, hilariously enough, treating nothingness as if it were a state of affairs which is a clear contradiction. — MindForged
How does stuff persist forever when an infinite past would have long ago reduced the universe to a wasteland? Anyone can play these hypotheticals when we're jacking off about a matter that is poorly understood. You're extrapolating natural laws to explain the existence of the subject described by the natural laws. Not sure that's going to make sense. — MindForged
Begging the question. Asking "what material" and "where did it come from" are just importing the assumption of an infinite past into the framing of your question. Again, we know how things work once we have a universe, you cannot extrapolate that back as an explanation of why anything exists in the first place. — MindForged
No no, you were giving a definition of existence and then the implications you drew from it seemed incoherent. You quoted a definition saying existence regards things which can be observed and then you said "Existence exists", whatever that means (sounds trivial) and I found any subsequent points to be gibberish. — MindForged
Think about it, if "that which exists can be observed because it exists" is elucidating anything, it's that things which exist are observable (and indeed, you outright say this in the above quote). But this a borderline untenable position that I hopefully don't need to explain much (just consider so-called "unobservables" in scientific models, or even just extremely distant objects that no observer will ever see). — MindForged
Explain what? If there was a first moment of time then t1 is the first state to exist and was not preceded by anything on pain of contradiction.
I don't really see how an eternal view of things is somehow more parsimonious. In actual fact, it's infinitely more complicated because it posits an infinite chain of facts to explain one datum (that things exist) and so would in normal circumstances not have the high ground in simplicity. I'm not sure how it's in need of explanation anymore than an infinite past. In fact, the obvious contention against an infinite past is exactly why it is infinite. There's no logical necessity in the past being either finite or infinite specifically. The how question here is framed as if an infinite past is actually understood in full and thus need not explain itself. — MindForged