Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Pattern-chaser]

We don't have to change our ordinary reifying hole talk, but ontologists don't have to regard holes as negative entities that are part of the furniture of the world.

Whether negative entities exist is a matter of ontological fact.

Then it is clear that the significance and relevance of "ontological fact" is much more important to you than it is to me.

[PoeticUniverse]

Further, there are no spacers of 'nothings' either; all is field.

[Terrapin Station]

First off, these three sentences:

"Any thing, of any sort, that obtains, occurs, etc. Anything of any sort that there is. So if there are laws, they exist in some sense. "

Have nothing whatsoever to do with physicalism. They're a general ontological comment that applies whether one is a physicalist or not.

Nope.[/quote]

What I said above is that those sentences have nothing to do with physicalism. Is that what you're disagreeing with re your "Nope"? You're arguing that they do have something to do with physicalism?

[3017Metaphysician]

First off, these three sentences:

"Any thing, of any sort, that obtains, occurs, etc. Anything of any sort that there is. So if there are laws, they exist in some sense. "

Have nothing whatsoever to do with physicalism. They're a general ontological comment that applies whether one is a physicalist or not.

Nope.

What I said above is that those sentences have nothing to do with physicalism. Is that what you're disagreeing with re your "Nope"? You're arguing that they do have something to do with physicalism?
[/quote]


TS,

No. As I said, that's a comment made out of logical necessity, not an ontological comment of Being. Otherwise you have a paradox or contradiction of sorts. That's because 'becoming' requires time for its existence, logical necessity does not. Logically necessary truth's are timeless and eternal. Kind of like the transcendent laws of the universe.

Accordingly, the laws themselves are metaphysical; not physical. Yet they are only apperceived ontologically.

Anither way to look at it is, that if one wants to argue for existing things using the logic of language (like you seem to be doing), then it is as simple as saying something like: there exists at least one true proposition. And that proposition must be true simply based upon logical necessity. Or said another way, it is logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

The paradox relates to the limitations of logic and language. Abstract mathematics is a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge is dependent on the meaning of words, not sense experience. Logical necessity is a priori knowledge and a Tautology: a formula that is always true by the interpretation and meaning of its terms, and sense experience is not required.

So, in ontology, a priori knowledge becomes a paradox. In epistemology, it becomes finitude. And existentially, absurd. Yet, metaphysically/cosmologically, it's considered a timeless eternal truth.

So much for pure reason. How fun is that

[Terrapin Station]

No. As I said, that's a comment made out of logical necessity, not an ontological comment of Being. Otherwise you have a paradox or contradiction of sorts. That's because 'becoming' requires time for its existence, logical necessity does not. Logically necessary truth's are timeless and eternal. Kind of like the transcendent laws of the universe.

??? What is this supposed to have to do with

"Any thing, of any sort, that obtains, occurs, etc. Anything of any sort that there is. So if there are laws, they exist in some sense."

as a response to "But you haven't explained or defined what are 'existents'?"

How are you reading "becoming" etc. into that in any manner?

[Terrapin Station]

As I said, that's a comment made out of logical necessity, not an ontological comment of Being.

Also, this:

"Any thing, of any sort, that obtains, occurs, etc. Anything of any sort that there is. So if there are laws, they exist in some sense"

Is neither "a comment made out of logical necessity" nor "An ontological comment of [or on] being."

It's simply an explanation or definition of what "existents" refers to, which you asked for.

[3017Metaphysician]

As I said, that's a comment made out of logical necessity, not an ontological comment of Being.

Also, this:

"Any thing, of any sort, that obtains, occurs, etc. Anything of any sort that there is. So if there are laws, they exist in some sense"

Is neither "a comment made out of logical necessity" nor "An ontological comment of [or on] being."

It's simply an explanation or definition of what "existents" refers to, which you asked for.

Okay, take a deep breath, and start from scratch:

"Anything of any sort that there is." Is that your proposition that posits something/nothing?

[PoeticUniverse]

4. There is a seemingly extravagant amount of material in the universe.

The Impossible Recipe Accomplished

Explaining the Cosmos is as easy as pie:
It’s an endless extravagance beyond the sky,
Which shows that matter’s very readily made—
Underlying energy raising the shades.

This All sounds rather like an ultimate free lunch,
For the basis is already made, with no punch,
It ever being around, as is, never a ‘was’—
Everywhere, in great abundance quite unheard of.

There’s even more of it than can be imagined—
Of lavish big spenders, there in amounts unbounded:
Bubbles of universes within pockets more,
Across all the times and spaces beyond our shore!

What is the birthing source of this tremendous weight?
There is nothing from which to make the causeless cake!
Its nature is undirected, uncooked, unbaked?
There can’t be a choice to that ne’er born and awaked!

There can’t be turtles on turtles all the way down;
The buck has to stop somewhere in this town.
‘Nothing’ is unproductive—can’t even be meant;
All ever needed is, with nothing on it spent!

Yes, none from nothing, yet something is here, true;
But, really, you can’t have your cake and Edith, too!
And yet I’ve still all of my wedding cake, I do—
It’s just changed form; what ever IS can never go.

Since there’s no point at which to impart direction
The essence would have no limited, specific,
Certain, designed, created, crafted, thought out meaning!
Thus the Great IS is anything and everything!

This All is as useless as Babel’s Library
Of all possible books in all variety!
Yes, and even in our own small aisle we see
Any and every manner of diversity.

The information content of Everything
Would be the same as that of Nothing!
Zero. The bake’s ingredients vary widely,
And so express themselves accordingly.

What’s Everything, detailed? Length, width, depth, 4D—
Your world-line; 5th, all your probable futures;
6th, jump to any; 7th, all Big Bang starts to ends;
8th, all universes’ lines; 9th, jump to any;
10th, the IS of all possible realities.

Your elucidation is quite a piece of cake!
Yo, it exceeds, as well, and so it takes the cake.
Everything ever must be, because ‘nothing’ can’t?
Yes, it’s that existence has no opposite, Kant!

So, we’re here at the mouth of the horn of plenty,
For a free breakfast, lunch, and a dinner party;
Yet many starving are fed up with being unfed.
Alas, for now I have to say, Let Them Eat Cake!

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, take a deep breath, and start from scratch:

"Anything of any sort that there is." Is that your proposition that posits something/nothing?

No. That's not a proposition. Propositions need to be statements--they need to be making a claim about something. For example, a claim that something has or doesn't have a particular property.

"Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent."

[3017Metaphysician]

Okay, take a deep breath, and start from scratch:

"Anything of any sort that there is." Is that your proposition that posits something/nothing?

No. That's not a proposition. Propositions need to be statements--they need to be making a claim about something. For example, a claim that something has or doesn't have a particular property.

"Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent."

Great!

What's "existent"?

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, take a deep breath, and start from scratch:

"Anything of any sort that there is." Is that your proposition that posits something/nothing?

No. That's not a proposition. Propositions need to be statements--they need to be making a claim about something. For example, a claim that something has or doesn't have a particular property.

"Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent."

Great!

What's "existent"?

So, since I just said that "Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent," I have to wonder why you're asking again. Do you not understand "Anything of any sort that there is"? Is something unsatisfactory about that as a definition to you?

[Terrapin Station]

It would be like if someone asked, "What's a 'cat'?"

And someone else answered, "a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractable claws. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed."

And then the first guy responded with, "What's a 'cat'?"

You'd have to wonder why the first guy is asking the same exact question again, as that's a very strange thing to do in context. It would probably be more helpful if he'd explain why he's asking again rather than just asking again as if the second guy hadn't typed a definition of the term.

[3017Metaphysician]

Okay, take a deep breath, and start from scratch:

"Anything of any sort that there is." Is that your proposition that posits something/nothing?

No. That's not a proposition. Propositions need to be statements--they need to be making a claim about something. For example, a claim that something has or doesn't have a particular property.

"Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent."

Great!

What's "existent"?

So, since I just said that "Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent," I have to wonder why you're asking again. Do you not understand "Anything of any sort that there is"? Is something unsatisfactory about that as a definition to you?

Okay, let me if this follows. Now you're back to a propositional statement or judgment the anything of any sort is considered an existent. If that's correct, then what is an existent? For example is an existent a Kantian thing-in-itself?

[Terrapin Station]

No. That's not a proposition. Propositions need to be statements--they need to be making a claim about something. For example, a claim that something has or doesn't have a particular property.

"Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent."

Great!

What's "existent"?

So, since I just said that "Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent," I have to wonder why you're asking again. Do you not understand "Anything of any sort that there is"? Is something unsatisfactory about that as a definition to you?

Okay, let me if this follows. Now you're back to a propositional statement or judgment the anything of any sort is considered an existent. If that's correct, then what is an existent? For example is an existent a Kantian thing-in-itself?

Can you tell me why you're asking what an existent is after I gave you a definition?

[AverageBozo]

Great!

What's "existent"?

So, since I just said that "Anything of any sort that there is" is one definition of "existent," I have to wonder why you're asking again. Do you not understand "Anything of any sort that there is"? Is something unsatisfactory about that as a definition to you?

Okay, let me if this follows. Now you're back to a propositional statement or judgment the anything of any sort is considered an existent. If that's correct, then what is an existent? For example is an existent a Kantian thing-in-itself?

Can you tell me why you're asking what an existent is after I gave you a definition?

3017:

Look for the word, “is” in TS’s writing. Think of “is” as shorthand for “is the same as” or for “is the definition of” or “is equal to” etc.