# Logic Question #1 and the “why?”

"A - A = Nothing" has to be true, otherwise something minus itself still equals something, which is incoherent.

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

A and B, two... what?
You still think they are premises?
So your question is not just "which is more logical?" but "which is more logical based on unstated premises arrived at through observation?"
I'm not interested in guessing what people mean simply because they are too lazy to be sufficiently precise.
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.
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.

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.

What is being used as your examples doesn't illustrate your point, it simply shows that you have no examples.
Do you not understand that particles (something) can come from vacuum (nothing?)

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.

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.

Do you not understand that particles (something) can come from vacuum (nothing?)

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

Everything, everywhere is something. There is no nothing.

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

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

since absolute non-existence is not an entity, state, object, principle, substance, empty container, etc that can serve as provenance for anything.
I am not totally satisfied with that answer.

Can Nothingness be a dimensionless condition of total permittivity?

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.

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).

I am not totally satisfied with that answer.

Can Nothingness be a dimensionless condition of total permittivity?

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:
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.
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.

I understand that you are referring to some theory. Which unproven one?
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.
Everything, everywhere is something. There is no nothing.
That's correct. Matter and antimatter are constantly being created from nothing.

I am not totally satisfied with that answer.

Can Nothingness be a dimensionless condition of total permittivity?

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".

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."

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

Last edited:
what we naturally observe.
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:
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)
Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter.
Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks – but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton’s mass. So what accounts for the rest of it?
Theory says it is created by the force that binds quarks together, called the strong nuclear force. In quantum terms, the strong force is carried by a field of virtual particles called gluons, randomly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron.
But it has taken decades to work out the actual numbers. The strong force is described by the equations of quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, which are too difficult to solve in most cases.
So physicists have developed a method called lattice QCD, which models smooth space and time as a grid of separate points. This pixellated approach allows the complexities of the strong force to be simulated approximately by computer.
Gnarly calculation
Until recently, lattice QCD calculations concentrated on the virtual gluons, and ignored another important component of the vacuum: pairs of virtual quarks and antiquarks.
Quark-antiquark pairs can pop up and momentarily transform a proton into a different, more exotic particle. In fact, the true proton is the sum of all these possibilities going on at once.
Virtual quarks make the calculations much more complicated, involving a matrix of more than 10,000 trillion numbers, says team member Stephan Dürr of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing in Jülich, Germany.
“There is no computer on Earth that could possibly store such a big matrix in its memory,” Dürr told New Scientist, “so some trickery goes into evaluating it.”
Crunch time
Several groups have been working out ways to handle these technical problems, and five years ago a team led by Christine Davies of the University of Glasgow, UK, managed to calculate the mass of an exotic particle called the B_c meson.
That particle contains only two quarks, making it simpler to simulate than the three-quark proton. To tackle protons and neutrons, Dürr’s team used months of time on the parallel computer network at Jülich, which can handle 200 teraflops – or 200 trillion arithmetical calculations per second.
Even so, they had to tailor their code to use the network efficiently. “We spent an enormous effort to make sure our code would make optimum use of the machine,” says Dürr.
Without the quarks, earlier simulations got the proton mass wrong by about 10%. With them, Dürr gets a figure within 2% of the value measured by experiments.
Higgs field
Although physicists expected theory to match experiment eventually, it is an important landmark. “The great thing is it shows that you can get close to experiments,” says Davies. “Now we know that lattice QCD works, we want to make accurate calculations of particle properties, not just mass.”
That will allow physicists to test QCD, and look for effects beyond known physics. For now, Dürr’s calculation shows that QCD describes quark-based particles accurately, and tells us that most of our mass comes from virtual quarks and gluons fizzing away in the quantum vacuum.
The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

Last edited:
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.
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:
Yes, all you need to do is get anesthetized. Your consciousness will cease and be replaced by absolutely nothing.
IOW, your conscious brain ceases to accept data and thus remains unconscious,

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.
YOU cease to exist, even as your body maintains homeostasis.
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:
Would you go on to state that unconsciousness as a state, exists or not exists?
=====
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:
C C