Logic Question #1 and the “why?”

[C C]

Non-existence is only an idea.

To assert that existence came from an absence of all conceived categories of be-ing is metaphorically the same as saying that existence (in general) has always been the case, since absolute non-existence is not an entity, state, object, principle, substance, empty container, etc that can serve as provenance for anything. To say absolute non-existence came before existence is nonsensical, since change/time wasn't applicable (there is not an antecedent condition or thing to change or become something else -- otherwise it would be an instantiation of existence).

If non-existence were an actuality, everything(all of actual existence) would go 'poof.' Existence is antithetical to non-existence, hence non-existence needs to be redefined. Neither, existence or non-existence, can exist simultaneously.

It wouldn't go poof because absolute non-existence is not an entity, state, object, principle, etc, with causal powers. Do you realize how contradictory it is to refer to "non-existence" existing, apart from surgically trying to illustrate another individual's semantic dissonance in that regard? (Though fine if you're just referring to the word existing, but it won't cause the universe to disappear.)

Absolute non-existence (in general, when not referring to a specific item like Zeus not existing) is just intended as a clarification for "nothing". Needed when we (people) engage in the idiocy of treating nothing as an entity, object, state, principle, substance, empty container, etc. 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 the everyday, casual usages of "nothing" (like "nothing is in the empty room") obviously don't apply to this topic. They're not references to absolute absence of all conceived categories of be-ing.

 

[Vociferous]

Non-existence is only an idea. If non-existence were an actuality, everything(all of actual existence) would go 'poof.' Existence is antithetical to non-existence, hence non-existence needs to be redefined. Neither, existence or non-existence, can exist simultaneously.

Actually, in any dichotomy, we only recognize one enough to label it because we also recognize its inverse. You can't even conceptualize one half of a dichotomy, as the absence of one defines the other. So each is necessary to the other. Both sides of any dichotomy must coexist in some respect. Otherwise, you'd never know about either.

If, A is more logical, give me a couple naturally observed instances of 'something coming from nothing?'

How do you equate 'something' with 'only elephants?' You only fancy elephants? And a downward spiral on an elephant?

Sorry, I probably interjected more actual philosophy into this ostensibly philosophy thread than such an OP could handle. Should have probably left it at "hey, there's no premises thar." Seeing as all your premises were hidden, if they ever existed as anything but ad hoc, you didn't limit the conclusions to the empirical, leaving the abstract fair game. But even so, if you've ever been creative, you cannot trace the origin of a new idea to any particular "something." That alone refutes B, as it only takes one counterexample. As far as other observables, there's virtual particles governed by the time-energy uncertainty principle, the negative energy of gravity that possibly leads to a net sum zero energy universe, and the Casimir Effect:

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions​

Just because you can observe something from something doesn't make it the only sound conclusion (that could just be anecdotal), as extending it back toward an origin requires an endless string of something causes, forever failing to account for the ultimate origin of any one thing in the causal chain. As such, saying it's all somethings is like the old myths that the earth rides atop a giant elephant (or in some myths turtle). When asked where the giant elephant came from, or what it stands on, such an infinite regress can only answer "it's elephants all the way down," which answers nothing at all. So B is vacuous, and only A provides any respite from the infinite regress.

 

[Vociferous]

To assert that existence came from an absence of all conceived categories of be-ing is metaphorically the same as saying that existence (in general) has always been the case, since absolute non-existence is not an entity, state, object, principle, substance, empty container, etc that can serve as provenance for anything. To say absolute non-existence came before existence is nonsensical, since change/time wasn't applicable (there is not an antecedent condition or thing to change or become something else -- otherwise it would be an instantiation of existence).

No, you just fail to grasp all the necessary traits, for lack of a better word, of nothing. Relative nothing coexists with our world as a matter of routine, otherwise we would not be able to conceptualize it. The same is true of something. If something were absolute, we would never have the means to recognize it,

 

[C C]

No, you just fail to grasp all the necessary traits, for lack of a better word, of nothing. Relative nothing coexists with our world as a matter of routine, otherwise we would not be able to conceptualize it. The same is true of something. If something were absolute, we would never have the means to recognize it,

Bold added to "coexists" for a reason. Wendy, the above is an example of: "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."

But Vociferous gets directly to his "nothing" being a label for something contended to exist, rather than being ambiguous about this brand of "nothing" actually instantiating some category of be-ing, or not being an absence of everything -- really being "something".

Regarding "absolute" -- it was used as a replacement for the magnitude of "all" in "absence of all conceived categories of be-ing" when instead using shorter "absolute non-existence".

 

[billvon]

The difference between your question and mine is this...

...mine is philosophy where reasoning begins to solve questions
...yours is science where the results are supposed to be in alignment with the reasoning.

Both attempt to use philosophy and reason. Both are further informed by science.

We once thought that something could not come from nothing, based on logic. We once thought that the earth was flat, based on simple observation. Both were wrong. In both cases, science was not aligned with the simplistic logical answer.

give me a couple naturally observed instances of 'something coming from nothing?'

Crystals (highly ordered structures) coming from solutions (disordered mixtures.)
Particles coming from vacuum.
Energy coming from two otherwise inert lumps of metal, when brought close to each other.

All of those are, to the naive observer, something coming from nothing.

 

[Vociferous]

No, you just fail to grasp all the necessary traits, for lack of a better word, of nothing. Relative nothing coexists with our world as a matter of routine, otherwise we would not be able to conceptualize it. The same is true of something. If something were absolute, we would never have the means to recognize it,

Bold added to "coexists" for a reason. Wendy, the above is an example of: "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."

But Vociferous gets directly to his "nothing" being a label for something contended to exist, rather than being ambiguous for a period about his "nothing" actually instantiating some category of be-ing, or not being an absence of everything -- really being "something".

Regarding "absolute" -- it was used to extra-emphasize the magnitude of "all" in "absence of all conceived categories of be-ing" (absolute non-existence), since simply saying "all" never seems to get across.

If you're going to try characterizing someone's argument, it's better not to make a complete straw man of it.

No implication of any sort of existence is implied in my usage. Don't be so single/literal-minded with the simple root word "exists." The concept of nothing certainly "exists," but you wouldn't say it has any sort of independent existence of its own. It exists relative to something, just as something exists relative to nothing (the lack of something that divides monism). Like any other dichotomy, light/dark, good/evil, etc..

You also seem to miss the necessary corollary to your own argument. The only "provenance" for one side of a dichotomy is the other side, and it works just as well in the other direction. Paring it down to the exist/non-exist dichotomy, you cannot say that existence always being the case could lead to non-existence. That's a blatant contradiction. To solve it, we get lost in the woods of the conceptual/actual dichotomy.

 

[Baldeee]

A and B, two.

A and B, two... what?
You still think they are premises?

Then you think through them to reach a logical conclusion based on natural observations.

So your question is not just "which is more logical?" but "which is more logical based on unstated premises arrived at through observation?"

If all you are worried about is the language being textbook, then you are going to loathe everything I do.

I am merely answering your question as you had written it.
I'm not interested in guessing what people mean simply because they are too lazy to be sufficiently precise.

I am only interested in logic and it doesn't take lots of words, let alone academia's authority, to write it out a statement making logical claims.

If all you want to do is write conclusions, you are offering nothing with regard logic whatsoever.
You haven't even begun to clarify how it is you intend one to judge what is "more logical", as pointed out previously.
Are you merely interested in validity of a deductive argument?
If so then both A and B can be concluded from valid arguments.
Thus they can both be equally "logical".
If you deem a sound argument to be "more logical" than a mere valid one, then you'll be hard pushed to arrive at a sound argument that concludes as either A or B.

Sorry, if you do not like my style. I am not here to impress, only to philosophize.

All you're actually doing is making it difficult for others to engage with you.
So unless you like to "philosophise" with yourself, you really should put effort into making yourself clearer.

 

[Write4U]

Questions;
a) can Nothing make it necessary for Something?
b) can Nothing itself be considered Something?

 

[Yazata]

Logic question: Which is more logical...

A) something coming from nothing

B) something coming from something

A or B? and why?

That doesn't look like a logical question at all. It looks more metaphysical to me.

A) and B) just look like propositions as opposed to chains of deductive reasoning.

In that case neither one would be more "logical" than the other.

I sense an additional unspoken premise lurking in the background, something like the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

This is the idea that

For all x, if x exists, then a sufficient reason for x's existence also exists

Then if we interpret "something" as 'something that exists', and

"coming from nothing" as 'not having a sufficient reason' and "comining from something" as 'having a sufficient reason'

we could perhaps argue that A) "Something coming from nothing" would be a violation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Like all logical arguments that will only be as strong as the premises upon which it is based. In particular we don't know that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is correct. It's seemed kind of intuitive to many people, but others don't agree. So it's up in the air.

Bottom line, what you think of as a logical question might be more about what metaphysical intuitions you embrace as axioms in your thinking.

 

[Write4U]

I sense an additional unspoken premise lurking in the background, something like the Principle of Sufficient Reason

My question was based on "Necessity and Sufficiency"
Do we know what is necessary and what would be sufficient?

 

[C C]

Questions;
a) can Nothing make it necessary for Something?
b) can Nothing itself be considered Something?

In a formal game or system on paper, one where distinct concepts can float on their own without having to correspond (rigidly) to anything in the "real world", the inventor can just make it a rule that all the ideational residents must have a necessary counterpart. Or restrict the dictum to a particular class of descriptive objects (not the whole population, as there may be some members that just aren't amenable to opposites).

But the game has to be coherent with itself -- all the components/properties, decrees and operations must hang together without conflict, be interconsistent. So such stipulations have to be considered in that context.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that we might have such a game that proves or demands _X_ has an essential counterpart. But it's not really validating anything about the "real world" off paper. Unless that's by accident or the game by chance (without intending to by its maker) does represent the world very well.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Questions;
a) can Nothing make it necessary for Something?
b) can Nothing itself be considered Something?

It depends on the Nothing being an absolute or relative.
Can relative Nothing be a "Thing" ?
Example of relative nothing:
A - A = Nothing
The Nothing is relative to the value achieved by subtracting A from A
and importantly the value of A is relative to nothing. For with out the universal constancy of nothing (zero) A is a floating variable of no fixed value.
where as :
Nothing
on it's own with out qualification is non relative...

 

[Vociferous]

Which is a roundabout way of saying that we might have such a game that proves or demands _X_ has an essential counterpart. But it's not really validating anything about the "real world" off paper. Unless that's by accident or the game by chance (without intending to by its maker) does represent the world very well.

There is no differentiation of somethings without a very real-world lack of such something in between. Again, monism only becomes otherwise due to nothing.

 

[Write4U]

A - A = Nothing

But is that not a false equation?

If we turn that around we get; "Nothing = A - A", and that is not true because it assumes the existence of a value; "A".

 

[Vociferous]

But is that not a false equation?

If we turn that around we get; "Nothing = A - A", and that is not true because it assumes the existence of a value; "A".

"A - A = Nothing" has to be true, otherwise something minus itself still equals something, which is incoherent.
"Nothing = A - A" only presumes that the referenced "nothing" is so relative to "A."
Now if we're talking about a hypothetical, absolute nothing, "A" is then only a stand-in for potential.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"A - A = Nothing" has to be true, otherwise something minus itself still equals something, which is incoherent.
"Nothing = A - A" only presumes that the referenced "nothing" is so relative to "A."
Now if we're talking about a hypothetical, absolute nothing, "A" is then only a stand-in for potential.

well stated!
The potential of nothing is ultimately everything.... ( oops did I take it a little to far...)

 

[Write4U]

well stated!
The potential of nothing is ultimately everything.... ( oops did I take it a little to far...)

If Nothing collapses into a singularity, might it become necessary that its Potential must expand into infinity, thereby creating space(time)?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If Nothing collapses into a singularity, might it become necessary that its Potential must expand into infinity, thereby creating space(time)?

hmmm...somethin' to think about, hey...?

 

[Write4U]

Speaking of logic.

I just listened to Sean Carroll and had to stop before 3 minutes had passed. In his lecture Carroll declared that the universe started in a low entropy state, which sounded illogical to me.

My question: Does the BB inflationary epoch count as a low entropy event? Seems to me that starting from a singularity the inflationary epoch is an extraordinary high entropy event . Does anyone have an explanation why that should be considered a low entropy event? Is the current expanding universe a low entropy process?

 

[WendyDarling]

To assert that existence came from an absence of all conceived categories of be-ing is metaphorically the same as saying that existence (in general) has always been the case, since absolute non-existence is not an entity, state, object, principle, substance, empty container, etc that can serve as provenance for anything. To say absolute non-existence came before existence is nonsensical, since change/time wasn't applicable (there is not an antecedent condition or thing to change or become something else -- otherwise it would be an instantiation of existence).



It wouldn't go poof because absolute non-existence is not an entity, state, object, principle, etc, with causal powers. Do you realize how contradictory it is to refer to "non-existence" existing, apart from surgically trying to illustrate another individual's semantic dissonance in that regard? (Though fine if you're just referring to the word existing, but it won't cause the universe to disappear.)

Absolute non-existence (in general, when not referring to a specific item like Zeus not existing) is just intended as a clarification for "nothing". Needed when we (people) engage in the idiocy of treating nothing as an entity, object, state, principle, substance, empty container, etc. 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 the everyday, casual usages of "nothing" (like "nothing is in the empty room") obviously don't apply to this topic. They're not references to absolute absence of all conceived categories of be-ing.

So, you agree with me, non-existence is an idea not an actuality? You essentially agreed with me above, but you have never thought about the existence of ideas before as part of existence. I am being counter-intuitive to logic, but it makes sense if you can overcome how it sounds contradictory, and concentrate on what I mean instead.

Existence is two things:

1) actual, shared, observable/perceivable phenomena
2) ideas, only in the mind(such as non-existence, or anything used as a placeholder).

Ideas exist but are not actualized outside of the mind as they are defined.

Ex. a unicorn is an idea only, not a flesh and blood animal actualized. Toy unicorns are actual toys, not actual unicorns.

Yes, the idea addendum being included as part of existence is "unseemly" since it hasn't been defined philosophically or in any other way either. It, ideas, is new to the game of being part of Existence, but it makes it easier to recognize what exists which is everything, but not everything is actualized as phenomena.

You don't need to like it, you only need to understand it.