3 states of nothing.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

3 states of nothing.

Post by Thinking critical » May 2nd, 2018, 8:17 am

How to get something from nothing has for centuries been a popular topic of discussion for both theologians, philosophers and more recently scientists in order to put forward a logically sound argument in an attempt to explain the origin of our Universe.
As with the majority of these types of arguments the problem of defintion will often prevent the progression of a productive discussion.
There are in my opinion after watching various debates in regards to the something from nothing dilemma, three definitions of nothing which are most commonly referred to.

Macro nothing The nothing referred to in everyday language "the box is empty, there's nothing in the box" "the room is empty, there's nothing in the room".
micro nothing Which scientists refer to, the absence of any form of measurable mass - zero energy.
philosophical nothing Simply put, the absence of existence (a state void of existence).

It is the philosophical nothing that I will demonstrate to be a paradox, please feel free to critique the 3 states of nothing I have described.

Philosophical nothing as in the absence of existence is in fact the position we are experiencing right now. If we were to say that before the Universe came into existence there was a philosophical nothingness, then by definition and logic we are inferring the existence of the absence of existence - we have therefore demonstrated a pre universe state of existence. From here the philosopher will attempt to also remove the state of a non existent Universe, that is to say the philosopher wants to logically demonstrate that we can conceive a concept where it is reasonable to assert "this is a state where the actual absence of all spectrums cease to exist, this is nothing".
My argument is, because right now we do exist, the philosophical nothing litterally is nothing, the non existent state or the absolute absent state doesn't exist because an actual existing state has taken it's place.

So this attempt by philosophers to dupe scientists out of there explanations of nothing, creates a paradox so to speak. The attempt to eliminate one state of existence leaves us in another state, carry on eliminating and it leads to infinite regress.
The only way to logically create a state completely void of everything conceivable to then make the state itself a nothing, is to have something.......

Conclusion:
To ask how we get something from nothing is asking the wrong question. How can we even conceive of nothing if something doesn't exist to begin with?
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 278
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Halc » May 2nd, 2018, 9:11 am

Thinking critical wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 8:17 am
Macro nothing The nothing referred to in everyday language "the box is empty, there's nothing in the box" "the room is empty, there's nothing in the room".
micro nothing Which scientists refer to, the absence of any form of measurable mass - zero energy.
philosophical nothing Simply put, the absence of existence (a state void of existence).

It is the philosophical nothing that I will demonstrate to be a paradox, please feel free to critique the 3 states of nothing I have described.
The first one is nice, but not useful for philosophy. Unfortunately, this is the everyday use, and discussions often presume assumptions from this case, however inappropriate. If the room represents the set of all that is, it cannot empty since it must contain the room, a contradiction. So the discussion should be why is there anything vs. not anything (not even an empty set). Discussing nothing vs. not nothing seems to get off on the wrong foot.

Micro: There is mass and energy. So the sum of it all is probably zero. Potential energy (ball at top of incline plane) for instance is negative energy. There is mass, but no measurable 'stuff'. They've never found any actual matter that occupies actual volume or has something as intuitive as a location. Sorry, just dumping a few thoughts. Not sure how relevant it all is.
Philosophical nothing as in the absence of existence is in fact the position we are experiencing right now. If we were to say that before the Universe came into existence there was a philosophical nothingness, then by definition and logic we are inferring the existence of the absence of existence - we have therefore demonstrated a pre universe state of existence.
That's the usual line, yes, and a display of naive view of the universe as an object that 'happens' in a larger container. Time is part of the universe, so sans universe, there is not a time when it doesn't exist. If there was a time before the universe-object, then that time is existence itself and you have to ask why there is time instead of not-time.
My argument is, because right now we do exist, the philosophical nothing litterally is nothing, the non existent state or the absolute absent state doesn't exist because an actual existing state has taken it's place.
If this new state has taken its place, then there is a temporal progression from one state to the next, and that process/progression is something. Also, I am very hesitant to assume 'right now we do exist'. The statement seems to assume its conclusion. As a relativist, I would never word it that way. As a relativist, all these problems about why existence exists seem to go away.
So this attempt by philosophers to dupe scientists out of there explanations of nothing, creates a paradox so to speak. The attempt to eliminate one state of existence leaves us in another state, carry on eliminating and it leads to infinite regress.
Yes it does, but I'm not sure the scientists are positing explanations for this philosophical topic. The scientists maybe do, but then it is not science being done. And even some of the greatest scientists are fairly average philosophers.
Conclusion:
To ask how we get something from nothing is asking the wrong question. How can we even conceive of nothing if something doesn't exist to begin with?
Agree.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2037
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Felix » May 2nd, 2018, 3:16 pm

Well, one entity's nothing is another's something, and when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose, so there is always something to live for.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Namelesss » May 7th, 2018, 12:05 am

Thinking critical wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 8:17 am
How to get something from nothing has for centuries been a popular topic of discussion for both theologians, philosophers and more recently scientists in order to put forward a logically sound argument in an attempt to explain the origin of our Universe.
As with the majority of these types of arguments the problem of defintion will often prevent the progression of a productive discussion.
There are in my opinion after watching various debates in regards to the something from nothing dilemma, three definitions of nothing which are most commonly referred to.
See what happens when an absurd premise is accepted?
We start imagining that 'nothing' is, indeed, something, and begin giving it properties! Dividing it up amongst the wealthy!
(Pssst, "I got a pound of nothing here, only $4,500.! You want in?")

Every THING exists!
There is no no-thing that exists!

Of course the word "nothing" exists (like in this sentence), but it is not 'tethered' to any-thing (no 'thought/image')!

The notion of some-physical-thing from 'nothing' is absurd, a desperate attempt by the ignorant to curry grants!
"Well, once upon a time, the Universe was all the size of a peach, and then one day that was not one day because there were no days or nights, our peach blew to smithereens making this entire Universe and all the 'matter'..."
Shoot, even the children cannot believe that cock-and-bull story.
But if you first convince the naive young 'uns that 'nothing' is 'something' on YouTube and other media, it will be easy to convince them, later, to fund your 'research' into 'nothing'...
With all due respect to scientists, philosophers are here to critically examine (science's) unexamined assumptions. Thus are many scientists feeling threatened by (and, thus, antipathy toward) philosophers!

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: 3 states of noth

Post by Thinking critical » May 7th, 2018, 3:41 am

Namelesss wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 12:05 am
See what happens when an absurd premise is accepted?
We start imagining that 'nothing' is, indeed, something, and begin giving it properties!
And.
Thus are many scientists feeling threatened by (and, thus, antipathy toward) philosophers!
I doubt there are to many scientists who feel threatened by philosophers attempts to undermine there proffesions while sitting in there arm chairs attempting to think up answers to the questions which are at the frontier of our current knowledge.
The biggest problem philosophers face is excepting that they are limited by the faculties of there own minds. Often when they attempt to step outside these limits such as attempting to explain the nothingness which proceeded the Universe or descriptions of the state of god, they use language, distort definitions and play games to manipulate logical discourse to create a sort of super position which is beyond the reach of science and the reality to which most of us subscribe to.
The discovery of dark matter (what ever it actually is) is a step towards understanding what the nothingness that makes up so much of our Universe is finally made of. Then of course philosophers come along and say "uh uh that's not the nothing where referring to, our nothing doesn't exist".
This is simply a lack of discipline and goes against an epistemically structured approach which is required if we are to ever uravel the mystery of origins.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: 3 states of noth

Post by Namelesss » May 7th, 2018, 5:10 am

Thinking critical wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 3:41 am
Namelesss wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 12:05 am
See what happens when an absurd premise is accepted?
We start imagining that 'nothing' is, indeed, something, and begin giving it properties!
And.
Thus are many scientists feeling threatened by (and, thus, antipathy toward) philosophers!
I doubt there are to many scientists who feel threatened by philosophers attempts to undermine there proffesions while sitting in there arm chairs attempting to think up answers to the questions which are at the frontier of our current knowledge.
(Doesn't your spell-check work?)
Even with the spin that you are spinning ("philosophers attempts to undermine there proffesions", as if that is what is happening, and who gives a ratzass where they sit and think?!) your lack of experience/doubt is no refutation.
I have spoken to many scientists (= experience/Knowledge), and the results of that experience is what I offer.
True, in total, my sampling was small, no more than 75 - 100 throughout the years, so, ultimately, your 'doubt' might be well placed.
Perhaps not.
I am not hearing the logical/experiential support for your 'doubt', just your declaration thereof.
...the reality to which most of us subscribe to.
Is a superficial, mean understanding, no further than the tips of your noses.
'Consensus', historically, is (almost) always wrong!

The discovery of dark matter (what ever it actually is) is a step towards understanding what the nothingness that makes up so much of our Universe is finally made of.
Nonsense!
'Dark matter' is no more than a theory to fill in the dark spaces of our ignorance!
Like the Big Bang theory!
One Perspective on the matter is;

https://www.quora.com/

What do you personally think dark matter is?

Stephen Perrenod, physics degree from MIT and astrophysics Ph.D. from Harvard
Answered May 28 · Upvoted by Jeff Comer, PhD in Physics, Assistant Professor and biophysicist

Personally, I think it doesn’t exist.

I only recently came to this conclusion with the publication of Verlinde’s Emergent Gravity paper last November.

The direct detection attempts for dark matter keep coming up short.

It might be:

WIMPS - least massive supersymmetric partner particle but CERN shows no evidence for supersymmetric particles
Axions - these have never been detected
Sterile neutrinos - ditto
Primordial black holes - but these are mostly ruled out although the two intermediate black hole gravitational wave merger events are interesting.
Aside from that it might be a phantom. Phantom matter refers to what seems to be matter due to gravitational effects, but is really dark gravity, that is emergent gravity -- extra gravity. That arises when one takes into account the interplay of ordinary matter and dark energy.

More on emergent gravity here:

Emergent Gravity: Verlinde’s Proposal

It is still very much an open question, we can not rule dark matter in or out completely at this point.
Then of course philosophers come along

Yeah, well... philosophy came along wayyyy after science, right?
Science must have been here millennia before "philosophers came along", right!
Your dismissive tone and spin says everything about your biases...
Do you consider yourself a 'scientist'?
and say "uh uh that's not the nothing where referring to, our nothing doesn't exist".
This is simply a lack of discipline and goes against an epistemically structured approach which is required if we are to ever uravel the mystery of origins.
You will never "unravel the mystery of origins" because "origins" are an 'illusion', an artifact of unexamined assumptions, like 'causality' and 'time'. There is no 'origin to the Universe'.

Philosophers examine assumptions, scientists, on the whole, do not.
Ten fruitful moments of thought in one's armchair, or on the toilet, or under torture, or working out, etc... can show that an entire direction of scientific research/thought will lead to a dead-end (usually after costing the taxpayer billions in funding and grants...).
They are, of course, dismissed by the 'scientists' (threatening their income), only to find 'time tell' and they wind up in a dead end but, hey, at least they invented a new toothpaste in their fruitless quest for a 'time machine'!
A $1,200. tube of toothpaste...

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Thinking critical » May 7th, 2018, 5:46 am

Well, you have made it very clear that the academic achievements of the generations before us who have stood on the shoulders of those before them in the endeavour of gaining knowledge and a understanding of the world, mean very little to you. You can and I'm sure will, reject and assert what ever you please.....it really makes no difference to anyone.
If you believe there is no origin you will never be willing look.
What was the last significant contribution philosophy made to modern society?

I see no reason to dismiss the rest of your comments as they lack any credible content.
The reality to which we subscribe btw, is the one forged by the laws of physics.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Namelesss » May 7th, 2018, 6:53 am

Thinking critical wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 5:46 am
What was the last significant contribution philosophy made to modern society?
That you can even ask this question makes me despair of the possibility of rational discussion, leaves me speechless in wonder at the ignorance, or you are being very insincere, intellectually dishonest.
The reality to which we subscribe btw, is the one forged by the laws of physics.
"We"?
You speaking for me?
The world of classical physics has been 'turned upside down' by QM (which informs all sciences if they are to remain relevant)!
Being fed 'classical physics' for so long, ensures that many years will be necessary for people in the street to be able to perceive the new Reality that quantum presents!
In the meantime, they sound like you...

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Planck, Max; 1858-1947; German physicist, quoted in Mossis Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning. Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics (1936)

All great truths begin as blasphemies. George Bernard Shaw

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 443
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Karpel Tunnel » May 7th, 2018, 3:34 pm

I don't think philosophers have tried to undermine scientists with the question of how you get something from nothing. This seems like a made-up battle to me. Cosmologists and philosophers both ask this sort of question, and different philosophers and cosmologists come up with different best guesses as to 1) this has in fact happened and/or 2) what the answer might be. IOW it seems like an assumption in this thread is that philosophers, in general, do X to undermine scientists. I think this is a hallucinated dichotomy/issue and confused generalization of both philosophers and scientists. There may be some interesting points, here, about how to resolve or think about the issue, but the context is not real. It's not nothing, it's an unreal context represented in minds that has no real world correlate outside those minds.

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Thinking critical » May 8th, 2018, 6:22 am

Namelesss wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 6:53 am
Thinking critical wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 5:46 am
What was the last significant contribution philosophy made to modern society?
That you can even ask this question makes me despair of the possibility of rational discussion, leaves me speechless in wonder at the ignorance, or you are being very insincere, intellectually dishonest.
As I suspected, the answer is nothing. But I have obviously hit a nerve.
The reality to which we subscribe btw, is the one forged by the laws of physics.
"We"?
You speaking for me?
Unless you're claiming to be some sort of god that is not required to abide by the laws of physics, then yes I am.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 3:34 pm
I don't think philosophers have tried to undermine scientists with the question of how you get something from nothing. This seems like a made-up battle to me.
Nope, I have watched many heated debates between Laurence Krause and both philosophers and theologians attempting to critique Krause's defintion of nothing. Brian Greene, Brian Cox and Neil Degrasse Tyson also make reference to the nothing described as a state of zero energy. Throughout history many philosophers such as Paremendies, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle have made attempts to logically define nothing. In essence they all reach the same problem of infinite regress where one state pesuposes the next. So NO this argument is NOT made up.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 443
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Karpel Tunnel » May 8th, 2018, 6:53 am

Thinking critical wrote:
May 8th, 2018, 6:22 am
Nope, I have watched many heated debates between Laurence Krause and both philosophers and theologians attempting to critique Krause's defintion of nothing. Brian Greene, Brian Cox and Neil Degrasse Tyson also make reference to the nothing described as a state of zero energy. Throughout history many philosophers such as Paremendies, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle have made attempts to logically define nothing. In essence they all reach the same problem of infinite regress where one state pesuposes the next. So NO this argument is NOT made up.
My point is not that this argument has not taken place. My point is that there is no philosophers attack the notion of nothing, scientists defend it. Or the reverse. You have members of both groups who dislike the idea of something coming from nothing. You have members of both who think it is possible (or likely or true). There is no consensus within physics that there was nothing before the Big Bang (or that this wording is a confusion, given the nature of time, etc.) The early philosophers you mention were not trying to dupe scientists, for example.
The discussion is a valid one, the points made, as I said, may be interesting, but the 'dupe scientists' is an incorrect generalization. Krause or better put Krauss' position in his pop-science book, has gotten criticism from physicists, often focused on the presence of laws or conditions, and the fact that his explanations are not testable, falsifiable.

There was a period when the Big Bang was seen as the beginning period, but there are, within science and not at its fringes, other ideas held.

And there are a great many philosophyers who render unto the models and speculations of scientists that whole realm, and work out stuff they think is the only stuff left to them.

David Albert criticises Krauss and Krauss dismissed him as a philosopher, 'who probably dislikes my criticism of philosophy' not mentioning that he's also a theoretical physicist and a cosmologist.

Have a great discussion about nothing, something, beginnings, cosmology. But there is no need to simplify the context and make philosophers 1) some monolithic group (or scientists a monolithic group for that matter ((or that they are mutually exclusive groups for that that matter))) 2) categorize philosophical positions as, per se, attempts to dupe someone, as if philosophers were the new papacy.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: 3 states of nothing.

Post by Namelesss » May 8th, 2018, 9:37 pm

Thinking critical wrote:
May 8th, 2018, 6:22 am
Namelesss wrote:
May 7th, 2018, 6:53 am

That you can even ask this question makes me despair of the possibility of rational discussion, leaves me speechless in wonder at the ignorance, or you are being very insincere, intellectually dishonest.
As I suspected, the answer is nothing. But I have obviously hit a nerve.
Nah, you merely display your ignorance. Sorry, truth hurts, but if being called on your ignorance bothers you, feel free to dispel it;

see; https://www.google.com/search?q=what+ha ... fox-b-1-ab

First, you mention a perceived 'reality to which we subscribe', implying 'choice', 'will'.
= Psychology and emotional/egoic needs.
Then you compare an inability to break (most) physical laws of nature as 'refutation'.
= Science.
Apples and oranges.

Post Reply