Can Nothing Create Everything?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Can Nothing Create Everything? » Can Nothing Create Everything?

Can Nothing Create Everything?
A curiosity involving infinite possibilities

Page: 1 2

Can Nothing Create Everything?

Immöbius
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 04, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 11/04/09 - 06:11 PM: Subject: Can Nothing Create Everything?	#1
Many esoteric cosmologies unfold from a point of nothing. Two obvious examples being the Major Arcana's Fool Tarot card and the biblical tendency to riddle and dance around the concept of nothing-as-something (I can supply examples, but do not wish to bias my question with extensive forethought). I'm no mathematician, but I do enjoy mathematical logic; thus my question is simple: Can nothing create every possibility? At first the question seems a paradox. Nietzsche stated that Nihilism must be overcome, and as I understand Nihilism it is taking this topic's title statement at face value. However, what if the ultimate free lunch is being sampled, right now? To elaborate: If matter and anti-matter cannot be created or destroyed, does this follow that nothing can create or destroy matter? That is to say, in the context that the concept "nothing" literally can manifest reality in the forms of say atoms (which can be construed to seem to be objects of probability themselves) and magnetic fields? To expand a bit on the question, if nothing can create something, doesn't this imply infinity as a possibility, or fundamentally a static object? If I understand Occam's Razor correctly, I believe it implies both, though the former contains the later, granted. This is a thought that I recently have had, though I see it posted in similar forms on the internet, the availability and competence of investigative responses are relatively sparse. I do not wish to imposition this forum board, but any response would be much appreciated. My apologies if this question is redundant, misplaced, or otherwise illegitimate.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 11/04/09 - 07:17 PM:	#2
It obviously can - once we assume that no singular thing (aka God.) can create everything. The problem with large proponents of these types of arguments are: 1. No 'in-between'. Due to inadequate relationships between the all/nothing system for creation - we cannot create a scaler model to determine to some extent various states of possibility. 2. On account of integration of new meanings (new words) to language in addition to the 'rolling effect' of learning; the object-meaning system introduced from the Botano/Husserl/Searles area tends to indicate that current present-day usage of Language is only viable by the action behind words forming from independent object origins. (currently my mind is playing with Searles response concerning vitalism/mechanism and applying semantics to it such that the mechanism part of semantics align to the vitalism aspect of what Searles stated. And this is more of a 'whim' then any logical reasoning.) 3. Certain macro/micro ideas are non-existent. They land in the 'simulated reality' problems which default to illusory ideas. We cannot prove that Banno is not a goat for instance.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 275

Posted 11/04/09 - 08:13 PM:	#3
There are two types of “nothingness”. The first kind is the absence of available information and the second kind is the absence of everything. If all the forces in a system are in perfect balance, i.e., neutral, than there is no transmission of information. However, if the system is devoid of contents it may actually transmit information about its emptiness. Nothingness, whether ontic or epistemic, can't create anything. It can only sustain what is already there.
thanatos

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 11/04/09 - 08:17 PM:	#4
Makes his ham and swiss cheese sandwich. God anyone? The part I disagree with is the whole perception aspect. In both cases the only difference between the two types of nothingness is in the way we cannot define an entity. (it eventually ties into the 'having to use different senses in conjunction with one to another' in order to determine an entity - from that Sartre's thread.)
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Immöbius
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 04, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 11/04/09 - 08:45 PM:	#5
Cadrache wrote: 2 This is the major point I'm addressing currently, context and syntax. Little euphemisms and slang sayings, such as "It's better than nothing", to be precise. Words do not convey meaning it would seem; or imply polarity - opposition, contradiction of surface context. Cadrache wrote: Makes his ham and swiss cheese sandwich. God anyone? To not joke, the final thing (oh yes, among other things) that set off this train of thought was a religion, Christianity's statement that "Nothing is greater than god"; mathematically that can be written as: "God < Nothing" or of course, "God is less than nothing". Einstein said "God does not play dice" - but as a child, ironically, I recall the first time I heard the word "paradise", I misheard that as "pair of dice". Which goes right back to the quick-fix pitfalls language either endures or detours around.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 11/04/09 - 08:49 PM:	#6
I always liked the argument that there exists no pitfalls in language. What is limited is how many states of the human mind can endure.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

longfun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/05/09 - 03:33 AM:	#7
jsidelko wrote: <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> There are two types of “nothingness”. The first kind is the absence of available information and the second kind is the absence of everything. If all the forces in a system are in perfect balance, i.e., neutral, than there is no transmission of information. However, if the system is devoid of contents it may actually transmit information about its emptiness. Nothingness, whether ontic or epistemic, can't create anything. It can only sustain what is already there. J ust one question: If you have your second kind of nothingness, are all potential properties of "everything" still available within this "nothingness"? If yes: then the second type of nothingness becomes a unmovable solid structural concept (filled with all potential properties) containing every potential everything, this includes every potential reality, all within nothingness. If no if also no potential properties are available within this nothingness, it can't be nothingness but turn into everything ... as nothingness is a (potential) property on its own, not?
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

Immöbius
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 04, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 11/05/09 - 05:58 AM:	#8
Cadrache wrote: I always liked the argument that there exists no pitfalls in language. What is limited is how many states of the human mind can endure. That is a good argument indeed. Thanks for reinforcement on that principle, I do tend to forget this one. I have had a tenancy to blame anglicism for many inconsistencies in capacity to understand communication - but in fact the argument you mention here is a stronger (or at least more interesting) one. I think my dilemma has been satisfied or is well on the way to fulfillment now. My apologies for making a topic when there exists others like this one already within the PF boards; I shall search them out again and give them a more thorough reading. Thank you for your time everyone.

SittinWSocratesTiff
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 02, 2009
Location: Strolling on the Absurd Side of the Street

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 82

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:31 AM:	#9
"There are two types of “nothingness”. The first kind is the absence of available information and the second kind is the absence of everything." I ponder the idea of absolute 'nothingness' that is explained above. There was an interview with the author of a book who took on a journey of seeking 'silenece' and what she discovered. The idea of there being a lack of noise did not result in silence was one of her findings. Silence in itself has a sound even if it is a lack of sound. One of the places she did find 'her silence' were places that actually had a lot of sound but not a lot of noise. Places like on the beach of the ocean, swinging in the hammock deep in the woods. Without going into too much detail all energies even those that seem to be absent of all or appears to be 'nothingness' still contains a value that can be recognized. I wonder if the idea of needing to experience day in order to understand the night doesn't apply to the idea of absolute nothingness.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 11/05/09 - 02:58 PM:	#10
The final piece? Recognize the difference between actual states of thought and mere polarities of subjects.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.