Happy Atheist Forum

Last night I was listening to the lastest episode of one of my favorite podcasts (the SETI institute podcast), titled:  Life, the universe and everything.

The presenters, seth and molly were having a fun chat with a Professor of theoretical physics from stanford university, called Leonard Susskind, when at the end of the chat molly asked a question which made the professor laugh a bit, Molly asked him why he laughed (you could hear the amusement in her voice too.) and then he proceded to reply to the question, which made me laugh, which is rare for me when listening to science stuff.

I thought it would be interesting to put them on here to see what other people think.

Molly: "Why is there something rather than nothing in the universe?"

Professor Susskind:  "That is exactly the kind of question you really want to be able to ask, its really what physicsts want to know.  But, on the other hand , its a kind of question we not only dont know the answer to, but we couldnt imagine an answer to.  What would the world be like if there was nothing, ..........well how can I answer that, if there was nothing I wouldnt be here.  There are somethings which are just unimaginable, and i mean you cant imagine answers to those questions.  But still its a awfully good question, Why is there something rather than nothing, ............ well, the answer is .... it beats me."

Just a bit of fun, i found it amusing and wanted to share it.  

"Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life." - Marcus Aurelius

Because nothing can't exist, by definition. The word "is" implies existence (that is what the word means). To ask, "Why is there not nothing?" is meaningless, because nothing can't "is."

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because nothing can't exist, by definition. The word "is" implies existence (that is what the word means). To ask, "Why is there not nothing?" is meaningless, because nothing can't "is."

Linguistically, what you just said is, I'm sorry to say, bullshit.

EDIT: Not the part about nothing existing, that is - that would be just technically incorrect, the part about is.

'Nothing' would constitute a zero field, whose value (position) and rate of change (velocity) could, in principle, be predicted with certainty. This is a violation of the uncertainty principle. Remember that HUP applies to fields in precisely the same way it applies to particles.

Note that, unlike the navel-gazer's treatment above, this is rooted in rigorous empirical science, and one of our two most accurate and successful physical theories.

Quote from: "hackenslash"'Nothing' would constitute a zero field, whose value (position) and rate of change (velocity) could, in principle, be predicted with certainty. This is a violation of the uncertainty principle. Remember that HUP applies to fields in precisely the same way it applies to particles.

Note that, unlike the navel-gazer's treatment above, this is rooted in rigorous empirical science, and one of our two most accurate and successful physical theories.

Huh??? :bananacolor:

Edit:  Sorry, Physics and I don't always understand each other.. Ok, it understands me, I just don't grasp it...  so usually I just run around naked and leave the heavy physics lifting to those much more intelligent than I am....  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because nothing can't exist, by definition. The word "is" implies existence (that is what the word means). To ask, "Why is there not nothing?" is meaningless, because nothing can't "is."

Linguistically, what you just said is, I'm sorry to say, bullshit.

EDIT: Not the part about nothing existing, that is - that would be just technically incorrect, the part about is.

You lost me a bit - about it implying existence or that nothing can "is." The former is just a reference to being, since "is" is the state of being verb. The latter is in quotation marks precisely because it's bad grammar. So I'm not sure where your disagreement is?

Quote from: "Martin TK"Huh??? :bananacolor:

Edit:  Sorry, Physics and I don't always understand each other.. Ok, it understands me, I just don't grasp it...  so usually I just run around naked and leave the heavy physics lifting to those much more intelligent than I am....  

Hehe. That happens a fair bit. This stuff is pretty counter-intuitive, but it is well established. Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot know both the position and the velocity of a particle simultaneously. This applies equally to fields. In this context, it tells us that a field can fluctuate around the zero value (with certain well-defined exceptions, such as absolute zero, which is actually impossible to attain, and can only be asymptotically approached) but can never actually remain zero (it can even have negative values, if you want really counter-intuitive).

In fact, as far as we can tell, a particle (or a field) doesn't actually possess a position or velocity until such time as it is observed. What constitutes an observer is another area that generates much confusion, because even another particle can constitute an observer. Indeed, in the majority of hard experiments dealing with this, the observer in question has been a photon. Some have suggested that it is actually the interaction of the photon that determines the position/velocity of the particles in any given experiment, and that the uncertainty inherent in the observation is related to the wavelength of the photon doiong to observing.

This is tricky stuff. Not for nothing is the most famous quote about QM Feynman's famous 'if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory'. These principles I'm talking about here, though, are very well-established, and in fact form the core principles upon which most of modern technology is dependent, in the form of quantum tunnelling, which is the principle upon which microchips operate. In other words, if this weren't true, your computer wouldn't work!

Edit: Oh, and navel-gazing is what is engaged in by people who think that more can be learnt about reality by staring at one's belly button than simply the colour of the lint found there, a.k.a. philosophers of the stripe of Jac here (who isn't actually a philosopher, but a theological apologist, much in the vein of Kalamity Craig and other such morons). I don't know whether you can tell, but I have little time or patience for such nonsense.

Quote from: "Jac3510"You lost me a bit - about it implying existence or that nothing can "is."

Is does not necessarilly imply conventional, material existence. For instance, "Nothing is certain" attributes a property t nothing by using is. Thus, in this expression, nothing "is" something (certain). You have to see the word is in the context of the question to apply the correct meaning to it.

QuoteThe former is just a reference to being, since "is" is the state of being verb. The latter is in quotation marks precisely because it's bad grammar. So I'm not sure where your disagreement is?

I didn't bother to argue the point, just the wording and the understanding of the question at hand. Since nothing can be defined, if not successfully imagined, one can, with the law of words in hand, say that nothing is or is not

Ah, I see. I'm not referring to material existence. I would only add that it is obviously self-contradictory to say that "nothing" can materially exist. Even when you conceive of nothing, the nothing, in virtue of the fact that it is a concept in your mind, is something, if nothing more than an empty concept. It's a label at least. Nothing cannot properly be thought of, because the moment you call it nothing, it ceases to be nothing. The entire notion is self-contradictory the moment we try to think about it or make it an object of cognition.

All this is why I find the entire question so silly. It is extremely evident (at least to me) that it is meaningless to talk about "nothing," which is why the question in the OP is (in my view) meaningless. If "nothing" is impossible, and if that which is impossible can't really exist, then it goes without saying that "nothing" can't exist (which should be evident in the statement itself). So there is something because that is what it means to be, and it couldn't be any other way.

Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

Quote from: "i_am_i"Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

That's not nothing existing. Don't confuse colloquial language with precise language. "There is nothing in here," taken precisely, is false. There is air in there. And if no air, there is space. "There is nothing in here" is a colloquial way to say, "What I am looking for is not found in this place."

So no, "nothing" doesn't "exist." It's both silly and self-contradictory to assert that it does.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

That's not nothing existing. Don't confuse colloquial language with precise language. "There is nothing in here," taken precisely, is false. There is air in there. And if no air, there is space. "There is nothing in here" is a colloquial way to say, "What I am looking for is not found in this place."

So no, "nothing" doesn't "exist." It's both silly and self-contradictory to assert that it does.

Actually I was going for a laugh there but obviously nobody was home.

Is everything always so drearily serious, so "precise," with you?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

That's not nothing existing. Don't confuse colloquial language with precise language. "There is nothing in here," taken precisely, is false. There is air in there. And if no air, there is space. "There is nothing in here" is a colloquial way to say, "What I am looking for is not found in this place."

So no, "nothing" doesn't "exist." It's both silly and self-contradictory to assert that it does.

Actually I was going for a laugh there but obviously nobody was home.

Is everything always so drearily serious, so "precise," with you?

I love this explanation. That "nothing" actually exists, to me, makes a lot more sense. If we can imagine something it is possible, and we cannot imagine nothing. Try it...it'll make your head hurt.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"If we can imagine something it is possible

Not necessarily.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"If we can imagine something it is possible

Not necessarily.

The suspense is maddening.

The post by hackenslash is good.  I only have a couple of comments.

"Observation" was an unfortunate choice of words back in the early 20th Century.  I can sort of understand why it came about.  People were trying to observe things.  Quantum Mechanics came about because people were trying to observe small things and developing finer and less obtrusive ways to do that, but as the instruments got better and better, the ability to observe in a classical way bottomed out.  Still, the word "interaction" would probably have been better and would have obviated some of the silly stuff that people say.

I studied QM and QED years before I learned that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle borrowed from an uncertainty principle in classical waves.  I wish someone had told me, as I think it would have eliminated a lot of brain hurt.  Consider a tone.  Say it's middle A, at 440 Hz, or 440 cycles per second of a sine wave.  That's the frequency.  Put another way, one cycle of the wave happens in 1/440.  Let's say you want to know how long the tone lasts.  If you want to know to the precision of a second or a tenth of a second, you're in pretty good shape.  However, if you want to know to a precision of less than 1/440 of a second, you run into trouble, because there is not enough time for even one cycle.  If you wanted a middle A tone that is, say, a tenth of a millisecond, then it wouldn't be a tone any more.  It would be more like a pulse, or a pop.  It turns out that a pop is made up of many frequencies.  So, beyond a certain point, the smaller and more precisely you locate the tone in time, the more its frequencies spread out.  It just doesn't make any sense to talk about a pure tone that is shorter than a certain amount.  There are two properties of a tone, frequency and time, and they are such that it doesn't make any sense to have both specified certainly.

Of course, QM involves a lot of weirdness, but this is the basic idea behind the uncertainty principle.  In the case of QM, the two properties can be position and momentum of a particle.  They can also be many others, including, as hackenslash mentioned, properties of a field.  In this case, the most interesting one is the energy of a point.  It can't simultaneously have a definite value and be stable.  So it cannot be a constant zero.

Wow!

It just goes to show you, not everyone has a sense of humour.

Thank you all for the replies, try not to send me to sleep next time.



"I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living, it's a way of looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. Which is what I do, and that enables you to laugh at life's realities."
Theodor Geisel

"People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition end by starving the best part of the mind."
William Butler Yeats

"The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible."
Arthur C. Clarke

"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the things you can think up if only you try!"
Theodor Geisel

Say about what ?

Quote from: "happyukatheist"Wow!

It just goes to show you, not everyone has a sense of humour.

Thank you all for the replies, try not to send me to sleep next time.

Perhaps if you had started a thread with less potential to get so deep into subjects you find boring, it wouldn't have dried out so quickly.  It's not as if the lighthearted nature of your intentions is inherent in grand cosmological questions.

If there was nothing, you wouldn't be here asking the question.  You are asking the question.  Therefore there is something: you asking the stupid question, and all of us hearing/reading it.

Richard.

I think it has to do with sqeaky ducks and little mermaids.

I think all philosophers need to take a time out

Quote from: "meta"If there was nothing, you wouldn't be here asking the question.  You are asking the question.  Therefore there is something: you asking the stupid question, and all of us hearing/reading it.

Richard.

In the future please try to be more civil in your approach to telling someone that they should have thought a bit more before asking a question.  Not to mention that asking "why is there something rather than nothing" is not a stupid question...many intelligent people ponder it.  

How would you like it if someone said that it is stupid to say that us existing is a reason to not ask why there is something rather than nothing?  

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "meta"If there was nothing, you wouldn't be here asking the question.  You are asking the question.  Therefore there is something: you asking the stupid question, and all of us hearing/reading it.

Richard.

In the future please try to be more civil in your approach to telling someone that they should have thought a bit more before asking a question.  Not to mention that asking "why is there something rather than nothing" is not a stupid question...many intelligent people ponder it.  

How would you like it if someone said that it is stupid to say that us existing is a reason to not ask why there is something rather than nothing?  

Ah, but Meta (Greek: beyond) is above such proletarian concerns.  His very screen-name says as much.

I don't think we will ever be able to explain why there is something...rather, accept that there is something, and then decide what to do with it.  The universe does not need to explain itself, it is only us who feel the universe should explain itself to us.

[youtube:2qt13d5i]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube:2qt13d5i]

Here's a lecture by Laurence Krauss on the topic of a universe from nothing. It's an hour long, so have snacks handy, but it's really good.

The relevant point from the video is that there is no such thing as nothing. You know that empty space between atoms you were told about in high school? Well, it's not empty after all. It contains something called dark matter. I'm kind of shaky on how all this works and this is still fairly revolutionary science.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Actually nothing does exist.

If you tell me that there's a wad of money in a box on your shelf and I open it to find that the box is empty, I'll turn to you and say, "There's nothing in here." And I'd be right!

Incorrect. Space that fills your wallet is not nothing. You are using the Term nothing to only describe the absence of what you expected to be there. Hence, without space, or energy itself their would be no box, or an inside to said box.

Now look up the terms Zero point energy, Vacuum Energy, and Ground state. In science nothing or Zero is in reference to Zero-point energy, or the very base of existence itself.

I always used to think that you cant get something from nothing, and i was always sceptical that the Big Bang could happen from nothing, i mean, there had to be something to start things rolling.

Well there is the theory of the multiverse, in which our universe is just one of many, and this theory can show that there was something before the big bang. but then we have to ask, where did that begin?

Quote from: "Ulysses"I always used to think that you cant get something from nothing, and i was always sceptical that the Big Bang could happen from nothing, i mean, there had to be something to start things rolling.

Well there is the theory of the multiverse, in which our universe is just one of many, and this theory can show that there was something before the big bang. but then we have to ask, where did that begin?

The theory that the Universe has a Net energy of Zero is correct. However, they are not talking about literal zero. It's zero-point energy. Hence the base of existence is considered the value of zero. This is also referred to as vacuum energy or even Ground state. There never was literally "Nothing". However if you are interested, I had an interesting discussion on this here:

http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/vie ... 75#p543703 (http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=139&t=16867&start=75#p543703)

"Why is there anything" is the most profound question there is.  

Here's what it's asking.  You'd think that if you go far enough back in time, that there must have been a time at which there was nothing, and then something was created.  It's hard to imagine how there could have always been some mass or energy or something.  Surely in the way distant past there was a time when there was absolutely nothing around.  But if there was nothing, how could something have come about?  If something created it (God, anyone?), how did that force or entity or whaever come to exist?

Now in the current universe it's true that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and create particles that almost always cancel themselves out almost immediately.  Some people have postulated that the big bang was a massive quantum fluctuation out of nothing.  But even if that were true, it depends on there being a structure or framework or physical laws that allow quantum fluctuations to occur.  So even if wasn't matter or energy, there had to be some kind of a framework even before that big bang.

So it seems to me that it's impossible for us to be here.

But we are.  So bottom line, we are truly ignorant about the nature of reality.  My guess is that we'll never figure this one out.

Quote from: "Wilson""Why is there anything" is the most profound question there is.  

Here's what it's asking.  You'd think that if you go far enough back in time, that there must have been a time at which there was nothing, and then something was created.  It's hard to imagine how there could have always been some mass or energy or something.  Surely in the way distant past there was a time when there was absolutely nothing around.  But if there was nothing, how could something have come about?  If something created it (God, anyone?), how did that force or entity or whaever come to exist?

Now in the current universe it's true that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and create particles that almost always cancel themselves out almost immediately.  Some people have postulated that the big bang was a massive quantum fluctuation out of nothing.  But even if that were true, it depends on there being a structure or framework or physical laws that allow quantum fluctuations to occur.  So even if wasn't matter or energy, there had to be some kind of a framework even before that big bang.

So it seems to me that it's impossible for us to be here.

But we are.  So bottom line, we are truly ignorant about the nature of reality.  My guess is that we'll never figure this one out.

Wilson, Nothing for the last time can not be a person, place, or thing in the literal sense regardless of how far back in time you want to think back to. And a god would still be subjected to that very same argument, and that is especially true when you start asking questions like what a god would be made of, and how was that material created, or how was said place of its existence created so itself could have a place to exist. It gets rather ridiculous doesn't it. Creationism is impossible since entities can not create existence, reality, or concepts of when they are slave to need it as much as anything else is or would be. Gods are logical fallacies at best.

As far as framework is concerned, you don't seem willing to apply such things to magical entities.. Such as what is a god without the information it requires to know it's a god or even existent.. All conscious entities are observers and products of reality and not creators of for a very good reason. You can only manipulate what already exists at best, and at best it would be no more different than a bird building a nest, or humans building big cities. So either all things are GOD or GODS do not exist under the concept of creation.

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

You need to start thinking in literal definition when you talk about nothing or even non-existence.. They could never be forms, entities, things, objects, places, or existent since the strict and literal definition states they can't and don't exist. These words are also only common descriptive words used as a means to describe the absence of something you expect to be there.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Wilson, Nothing for the last time can not be a person, place, or thing in the literal sense regardless of how far back in time you want to think back to. And a god would still be subjected to that very same argument, and that is especially true when you start asking questions like what a god would be made of, and how was that material created, or how was said place of its existence created so itself could have a place to exist. It gets rather ridiculous doesn't it. Creationism is impossible since entities can not create existence, reality, or concepts of when they are slave to need it as much as anything else is or would be. Gods are logical fallacies at best.

As far as framework is concerned, you don't seem willing to apply such things to magical entities.. Such as what is a god without the information it requires to know it's a god or even existent.. All conscious entities are observers and products of reality and not creators of for a very good reason. You can only manipulate what already exists at best, and at best it would be no more different than a bird building a nest, or humans building big cities. So either all things are GOD or GODS do not exist under the concept of creation.

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

You need to start thinking in literal definition when you talk about nothing or even non-existence.. They could never be forms, entities, things, objects, places, or existent since the strict and literal definition states they can't and don't exist. These words are also only common descriptive words used as a means to describe the absence of something you expect to be there.

Please note that I'm an atheist, myself.  My comments were not an argument for God, obviously, but an expression of the fact that it doesn't make any sense for us - or anything - to be here.  You say that "Nothing" could never exist.  Cool.  I agree.  So where did that "something" come from, originally?  My sense is that you don't know, I don't know, scientists don't know, and I suspect that in fact nobody will ever know.  A confession of ignorance on this subject is not an argument for the existence of God - it's simply telling the truth.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Wilson, Nothing for the last time can not be a person, place, or thing in the literal sense regardless of how far back in time you want to think back to. And a god would still be subjected to that very same argument, and that is especially true when you start asking questions like what a god would be made of, and how was that material created, or how was said place of its existence created so itself could have a place to exist. It gets rather ridiculous doesn't it. Creationism is impossible since entities can not create existence, reality, or concepts of when they are slave to need it as much as anything else is or would be. Gods are logical fallacies at best.

As far as framework is concerned, you don't seem willing to apply such things to magical entities.. Such as what is a god without the information it requires to know it's a god or even existent.. All conscious entities are observers and products of reality and not creators of for a very good reason. You can only manipulate what already exists at best, and at best it would be no more different than a bird building a nest, or humans building big cities. So either all things are GOD or GODS do not exist under the concept of creation.

So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

You need to start thinking in literal definition when you talk about nothing or even non-existence.. They could never be forms, entities, things, objects, places, or existent since the strict and literal definition states they can't and don't exist. These words are also only common descriptive words used as a means to describe the absence of something you expect to be there.

Please note that I'm an atheist, myself.  My comments were not an argument for God, obviously, but an expression of the fact that it doesn't make any sense for us - or anything - to be here.  You say that "Nothing" could never exist.  Cool.  I agree.  So where did that "something" come from, originally?  My sense is that you don't know, I don't know, scientists don't know, and I suspect that in fact nobody will ever know.  A confession of ignorance on this subject is not an argument for the existence of God - it's simply telling the truth.

That's fine, I don't think I was addressing only you vs others who might also be reading this. The main point really is irrelevant in regard to whether or not you are an atheist or a theist. It's just stating the reality that nothing doesn't actually exist due to it being literally impossible :D  Yes I understand that everything we know to exist is hard or may even be impossible to fully understand as to how and why it does, but the simple answer is because it can. Yes there could be something out there that had created the observable universe, but it could never have created existence or reality itself. For all I know, my own farts could be creating fluctuations in the fabric of existence to which somehow creates a new dimensional universe beyond our own.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

I've been thinking about this kind of question a lot lately. The more I puzzle over it the less happy I am with the kind of response you give. Funnily enough, as far as I can work out, the now dominant 'non existence of nothing' position stems from an early Christian maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing); which was used to justify a creator.

Please forgive me if what follows is somewhat shambolic, it is late and I am still struggling with the ideas myself.

So here is why I find the claim "nothing can't exist" troubling. It starts with a question I ask a lot, and have yet to get a fully satisfactory answer: "Where are my edges?" While we all seem to disagree as to exactly what constitutes 'us' we all seem to intuitively agree as to what is not-us. So I know I am not a tree in the distance, I also know that I am not you. Or that I am not my long since removed tonsils (though once they were a part of me). So what defines my edges?

Physical boundaries do not really help for two reasons: first they are impossibly vague (eg the oxygen and water cycles - when are particular molecules a part of me and when not?); second because they become all but redundant when dealing with temporal dimensions (eg the never ending cycle of cell death and birth).

Causal boundaries are even worse as the full casual system encompasses the whole cosmos (bounded by the distance light can travel in the life of the the cosmos). This line or argument would lead us to the conclusion that all is one. Pleasing perhaps, but then why are there edges and boundaries at all?

Objective mental boundaries are just dumb (sorry I have no time for idealism, we clearly have physical attributes), and even if we were to accept that the mind exists distinct from the body I still struggle to pin down what defines where I stop and other minds start.


This problem is in fact broader than one of personal identity, the question can be expanded, "What defines the edges of a thing?"

It seems to me that the only satisfactory answer is the concept of nothing (lit. no-thing). Nothing is the necessary context in which things become defined.

Bear in mind the existence of a thing as distinct from the gestalt of the cosmos is conceptual (ie they are boundaries we draw); so it is not mere word-play to place a concept as the limiting factor (ie using the concept of nothing to define the edges of things). So I think it is prima facie fair to claim that for a thing to exist so to must nothing.

Put another way, existence and nothing are two aspects of a larger whole. Nothing is necessarily a correlate of something's existence!


NB I think that I may have some precedent for this line of thinking in Eastern philosophy and the Taoist notion of Ying and Yang. Cf Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu...

peace

Quote from: "penfold"

Quote from: "TheJackel"So the very simple answer as to the question "why is there anything" is as follows:

Nothing can't and could never exist. It's a literal impossibility!

I've been thinking about this kind of question a lot lately. The more I puzzle over it the less happy I am with the kind of response you give. Funnily enough, as far as I can work out, the now dominant 'non existence of nothing' position stems from an early Christian maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing); which was used to justify a creator.

Please forgive me if what follows is somewhat shambolic, it is late and I am still struggling with the ideas myself.

So here is why I find the claim "nothing can't exist" troubling. It starts with a question I ask a lot, and have yet to get a fully satisfactory answer: "Where are my edges?" While we all seem to disagree as to exactly what constitutes 'us' we all seem to intuitively agree as to what is not-us. So I know I am not a tree in the distance, I also know that I am not you. Or that I am not my long since removed tonsils (though once they were a part of me). So what defines my edges?

That is pretty much irrelevant to the subject of non-existence or nothing. We are talking in terms of literal context.

QuotePhysical boundaries do not really help for two reasons: first they are impossibly vague (eg the oxygen and water cycles - when are particular molecules a part of me and when not?); second because they become all but redundant when dealing with temporal dimensions (eg the never ending cycle of cell death and birth).

There are no physical boundaries to existence in the sense of edges. Spatial capacity for example is an infinite volume because a negative spatial capacity is impossible to exist.. Cell death and birth are also irrelevant to the subject.

QuoteCausal boundaries are even worse as the full casual system encompasses the whole cosmos (bounded by the distance light can travel in the life of the the cosmos). This line or argument would lead us to the conclusion that all is one. Pleasing perhaps, but then why are there edges and boundaries at all?

Again, no possible boundaries to existence.

QuoteObjective mental boundaries are just dumb (sorry I have no time for idealism, we clearly have physical attributes), and even if we were to accept that the mind exists distinct from the body I still struggle to pin down what defines where I stop and other minds start.

Real simple.. Minds are not made of nothing for a literally good reason. They are material physical patterns. The mind and all it's thoughts and emotions are material even though they are incredibly complex. There is a reason why you have to physically feel love, hate, pain, anger ect and physically express them. It's no different as to why a robot or even rat brain cell robots can fly planes ect all on their own and learn from it, act on it, or do anything for that matter.

And to be clear, all things are made of energy, but they are simply in different states and complexities.  

QuoteThis problem is in fact broader than one of personal identity, the question can be expanded, "What defines the edges of a thing?"

Again information is not made of nothing.. Personal identity is solely based on information you have access to that gives your identity structure and meaning. Information again is nothing more than material physical patterns. And anything can be considered an piece of information. Here energy is the sum total of everything, it is the substance of existence itself. And ground state or zero point energy is the base to all that exists. Again Edges of things are irrelevant.

QuoteIt seems to me that the only satisfactory answer is the concept of nothing (lit. no-thing). Nothing is the necessary context in which things become defined.

Incorrect. Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing.. If it were, it wouldn't be nothing. If there is even information there to which you could process or apply meaning to, it wouldn't be nothing.. Again please remember we are talking in the most strictest form of literalism in regards to the terms nothing, or non-existence.



Anyways I think I know where you confuse yourself.. You keep refferring to something as a nothing. If you use the term "IT", or have an idea of something in your head, in both cases they are no longer nothing. And this is because they exist as ideas or objects in your head. Even a blank empty space is something more than nothing. So you can't think of nothing objects, persons, or places because it's impossible. So once you even think of something, it could never really in the literal sense be nothing, or even made of nothing.  :)

Quote from: "penfold"Funnily enough, as far as I can work out, the now dominant 'non existence of nothing' position stems from an early Christian maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing); which was used to justify a creator.

No. First of all, that particular phrase was attriibuted to Parmenides, who preceded christianity by at least 400 years, so we can dismiss the idea that it stemmed from christianity.

Secondly, the impossibility of nothing is rooted in the very real and demonstrable tenets of quantum mechanics.

If you don't like the answer, that's up to you, but it is the answer, and it is founded in precisely the same principles that the computer you are typing on rely upon for its operation, and are pretty much beyond refutation.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Secondly, the impossibility of nothing is rooted in the very real and demonstrable tenets of quantum mechanics.

In order for a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a framework and physical laws that allow it.  Take away those, and there could indeed exist nothing.  

However, since we're here, it does seem impossible that there was literally nothing at any point in the past.  Otherwise, there would still be nothing.  

We're in no danger of figuring this one out, y'all.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Secondly, the impossibility of nothing is rooted in the very real and demonstrable tenets of quantum mechanics.

In order for a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a framework and physical laws that allow it.  Take away those, and there could indeed exist nothing.  

However, since we're here, it does seem impossible that there was literally nothing at any point in the past.  Otherwise, there would still be nothing.  

We're in no danger of figuring this one out, y'all.

Yep I can tell you those..

Positive
Negative
Neutral

These laws can not be written because everything requires them. That includes consciousness. And there is no such thing as non-physicality because something can not be made of nothing. Nothing can not be a person, place, substance, or thing. And you can't create that which yourself requires to exist or even function. The laws of existence can not be created, they can only at best be manipulated.

So according to Quantum Theory, fluctuations begin from zero point energy, or ground state. Hence the lowest possible level of power and complexity in regards to the laws of positive, negative and neutral. This is to where the emergence of complexity arises from its base state.