# Logic Question #1 and the “why?”

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by WendyDarling, Sep 10, 2021.

1. ### YazataValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,902
Wouldn't that only work if A was everything that exists? Otherwise A - A would just result in no A.

Or for anything and everything that exists. (Everything that exists) - (Everything that exists) would seem to result in a strong 'nothing'.

I think that's how 'nothing' is used in the 'something from nothing' arguments. The absence of everything that exists in our (or any other) universe.

3. ### WendyDarlingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
104
You do realize you are trying to rationalize nothing into becoming something? Not at all what we naturally observe.

We observe something becoming something.

Yes, the problem of infinite regress.

The big, hard pill to swallow, the red pill, is the opposite of infinite regress or infinite absurdity which is (drum roll) Existence has always been.

An actual something eternal makes more sense than infinitely searching for an actual something coming from nothing.

5. ### WendyDarlingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
104
I think I am kind of having this discussion on another forum if I am understanding this right.

A-A=less A
A+A=more A

Other forum poster wrote "If something has no precedent, never existed before, it came from nothing.

If it’s always existed (the only other option), motion cannot occur.

Something without precedent. Without precedent is always something from nothing. (It’s never existed before and now it does)

If it’s always existed, it can’t transition to another state."

Without precedent? Eternal Existence doesn’t need precedent, it is and it becomes, both simultaneously.

The antecedent, Existence, is eternally actualized as a one of a kind, not needing what you are misconstruing as precedent. Everything is an imperfect one of a kind being generated/created by an intelligent energy non-stop and under the umbrella of Existence we souls are imperfect, choosing imperfectly, from imperfect options.

Other forum poster "If something has never existed before, it comes from nothing.

If something always exists, it is static (it never moves)."

You are acting as if something has to be identical to something else to exist, why?

Does a lump of clay have to be a finished statue first before it can become, be molded, into a finished statue?

Think of intelligent energy as a huge amount of clay, being molded.

Here everything, every moment is a one-of-a-kind made out of changing patterns of atoms, all made of atoms here, just like my example of everything being made of clay.

7. ### WendyDarlingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
104
What is being used as your examples doesn't illustrate your point, it simply shows that you have no examples.

8. ### WendyDarlingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
104
Philosophy is reason based on natural observations. If you cannot tell the difference between what is naturally observed and what is not, there is nothing I can do about that.

9. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,601
Do you not understand that particles (something) can come from vacuum (nothing?)

10. ### WendyDarlingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
104
I'm the first to admit about my mathematical deficiencies, but perhaps math statements don't necessarily translate into logical statements for every situation.

If everything in the 3-D space/time is made of atoms, but in different orders, patterns, arrangements, then

A-A=less A
A+A=more A

My statements make more sense in terms of explaining natural observations and the logic surrounding them.

11. ### WendyDarlingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
104
I understand that you are referring to some theory. Which unproven one?

Everything, everywhere is something. There is no nothing.

12. ### WendyDarlingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
104
Nothing and non-existence are only ideas, not actual places or things.

13. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
I am not totally satisfied with that answer.

Can Nothingness be a dimensionless condition of total permittivity?

14. ### C CConsular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,250
How many times do I have to use expressions like "absence of all conceived categories of be-ing"?

Does "all" have to be emphasized with the addition of redundant synonyms to finally get across what it embraces? "All categories of being" includes abstract entities and anything else crazy or not-so crazy that people might reify and assert as potent in some context (nomological, regulatory, generative, influential, temporal, spatial, etc).

15. ### C CConsular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,250
What I said to WD further back: "Except when -- as aforementioned -- "nothing" is used as a confusing label for an _X_ that actually does exist or is contended to. Which 99.9999% of time is very much what you'll discover that someone is employing "nothing" for after their initially vague offering is finally penetrated."

And pertaining to reified abstractions, which "total permittivity" would seem to be: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/logic-question-1-and-the-“why-”.164745/page-3#post-3683708

The absence of all regulatory principles (and everything else) would allow anything to be possible (i.e., existence). Since there would be no "administration" (so to speak) preventing such. (In a natural world, for instance, there may be _X_ items that are deemed impossible, though whether forbidden by abstract dictators or concrete circumstances is a side issue.)

However, a total absence of all classifications of be-ing, as well as the potential actions and causal powers we may attribute to particular members within them, is thereby nothing whatsoever -- not even a previous state to give birth to "something", due to the above. Thus, it would just be figurative talk that equates to the same as saying existence has always been the case. Satisfied by some member or members of being-hood, no matter what temporal era.

Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
16. ### BaldeeeValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,224
I'm sure you honestly think this has any bearing on the issue I raised... but that would be your mistake.
You asked "which is more logical".
If you can't cope with people taking issue with your subsequent sloppy use of language, such that the question you ask is shown not to be the question you actually wanted to ask, there is nothing I can do to help you other than continue to point out your sloppy (e.g. inaccurate) use of language in the hope that you gradually improve.

As for your strawman, philosophy is not "reason based on natural observation".
That would actually be a better description of science.
(Unless you want to go down the road of saying that experimental observations, for example, are not "natural".)

Unfortunately you have it backward: philosophy is not "reason based on natural observation" but rather "reason based on natural observation" is itself a philosophy one might adopt.

Philosophy, in simple terms, is rather the study of such matters as reasoning itself, right and wrong, existence, aesthetics, knowledge etc.
One can of course support one's philosophical position through "natural observation", and in many instances it helps to do so, but it will only take you so far.
There is no "natural observation" that will support the philosophy of realism over idealism, for example.

So if you really are here to "philosophise", as you claim, it might help you to have a better understanding of what philosophy actually is.

17. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,601
The Casimir effect.

This was not a theory; it was an observation in 1948 that a "vacuum" still contains subatomic particles, and that there can be a vacuum within a vacuum where those particles are reduced. A theoretical explanation was provided in 1955 by John Wheeler, who explained how quantum fluctuations of spacetime on very small scales, due to quantum mechanics, leads to the attraction seen during the Casimir experiment. Matter and antimatter within the space of the experiment is constantly being created and destroyed, leading to a small (but nonzero) energy level even in empty space. That energy can be reduced very slightly by the Casimir apparatus. This was confirmed in 1997 by a much more sensitive experiment.
That's correct. Matter and antimatter are constantly being created from nothing.

18. ### C CConsular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,250
Ah, sorry, my bad. In this reply, my brain went cross-eyed and kept seeing the obscure idea of "permitability" instead of "permittivity". (Never multitask while posting to a forum, would be the lesson there.) Still, it's in this territory below. It was the second part of that post that was arguably irrelevant, since it revolved around "permitability".

Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
19. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,328
According to your limited definition of existence:
Does unconsciousness (deep sleep, no dreams, no time) exist or not?
Naturally observed and common place experience. Can one experience unconsciousness if it doesn't exist?
Does Energy, the potential to perform work, exist or not exist?
Energy is an attribute, a property, a human abstraction, an idea.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
20. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
By Stephen Battersby

Each proton is made of three quarks, but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton’s mass (Illustration: Forschungszentrum Julich/Seitenplan/NASA/ESA/AURA-Caltech)
Gnarly calculation
Crunch time
Higgs field
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
21. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
Yes, all you need to do is get anesthetized. Your consciousness will cease and be replaced by absolutely nothing.

But your brain consists of two distinct parts; The conscious experiential thinking part and the unconscious control part.
IOW, your (conscious) thinking part brain ceases to accept and/or process data and thus remains unconscious, even as your (unconscious) controlling part of the brain maintains functionality. Your body becomes a collection of living, but unconscious cells.

This is why anesthesiologists are master over life and death. They are responsible for making conscious decisions for you, while you are "away".

This is how Anil Seth observed that under anesthesia there is no experience of duration (passing time). When you are "under" you can be unconscious for 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 year, 1 decade, 1 century and when you "wake" there will be no sense of any time having passed. YOU cease to exist, even as your body maintains homeostasis.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
22. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,328
Would you go on to state that unconsciousness as a state, exists or not exists?
=====
Part of the problem is the duality involved in existence vs non-existence and from what perspective the observation is made.

Years ago, in a long discussion with a fellow member, about the reality of nothingness we decided to mutually agree to make use of the fabricated word : no-exist.

This was to describe a situation where the observation both existed and didn't exist simultaneously. Thus accommodating an obvious paradox, discussion could continue to be productive.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
23. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
=====
Consciousness is an "emergent property"of brain processes. When those processes are inhibited you have no emergent identity. YOU do not exist. This is not like being asleep and dream, there is absolutely NOTHING. YOU have ceased to exist.

or to use your term "non-existence" = "disappeared"

Anil Seth says "under anesthesia" you become an object and when that process is reversed, your consciousness returns (emerges) and you become a person again.

He concludes that when you die, there is "nothing to be afraid of", "NOTHING AT ALL!"

Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
C C likes this.