View Single Post
Old 07-25-2010, 03:34 PM
Antone's Avatar
Antone Antone is offline
The Dynamic Synthesist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Greater Cincinnati area
Posts: 1,796
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
Does Nothingness exist?
If it does, then it is not nothingness, for it then exists.
The concept of 'zero' exists. We use nothingness as a 'thing'... But it is 'nothing', so how can [nothing] be also [something]? How can it [exist,] if it [does not exist]?
[Nothingness] exists as a concept. Conceptually then, it is as real as any other concept.

Is the [concept of an apple] real?
In the physical sense, NO! You can't touch or eat the [concept of an apple].
In the physical sense, It is quite literally [nothing].

Conceptually, the [concept of nothing] is as real as the [concept of the apple].
The difference is that [nothing] does not have a physical object as a counterpart--instead, it has the absence of all physical objects as a counter part.

This leads to a distinction between [concept of nothing] and the [concept of zero].
[Nothing] is the absence of everything.
[Zero] is the absence of something.

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
... demonstrate a perfect paradox.
Which shows that REALITY does not always abide by logic.
There is no paradox if you allow for the reciprocal nature of reality... which requires both the [conceptual aspect] and the [physical aspect] in order to talk intelligently about things in the world.

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
if it was not possible for something to come out of nothing...
Theories about the foundations of mathematics demonstrate how it is possible to think of something coming from nothing. They 'construct' the ordinal number sequence by progressively embedding the empty set inside itself. My personal version of this process goes as follows:
1 = {x:x is nothing}
2 = {x:x is {x’:x’ is nothing}}
3 = {x:x is {x’:x’ is {x”:x” is nothing}}}
4 = {x:x is {x’:x’ is {x”:x” is {x’”:x’” is nothing}}}}
and so on…
In other words,
[1] is the {idea of nothing}.
[2] is the {idea of the {idea of nothing}}.
[3] is the {idea of the {idea of the {idea of nothing}}}.
and so on...
This ordinal sequence gives us the concept of [order]. To transform it into the cardinal sequence, all we have to do is match each ordinal number with a physical object that is conceptually identical.

This is why the necessary existence of concepts is so important. Without the [apple concept] each physical apple would have to be considered as a unique and different object--which in the physical sense they clearly are. If I eat the [apple in my hand] I have not eaten the [apple in your hand]. But the [apple concept] provides us with a way to logically treat all [physical apples] as if they were the same. And this allows us to count them, by creating a one-to-one-correspondence between each [physical apple] and the [ordinal number sequence]... which we have literally constructed out of nothingness.

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
Somewhere along the line something has to come from nothing (more from less) or else all would be static.
In a similar way to the mathematical construction process that I outlined above... I think we can understand physical reality to (in a sense) be generated out of nothingness.

Think about it like this. There are subatomic particles that are literally [nothing] with respect to one physical characteristic or another. They may have [0 mass] for example. As such, they are arising out of nothing, and creating something by joining with other subatomic particles that may be nothing with respect to some other physical characteristic.

This is not unlike the way we see the apple arising out of two reciprocal aspects that are nothing in terms of the opposite aspect.
In the physical sense, the conceptual apple has no mass, but
In the conceptual sense, the physical apple has no conceptual identity. Each apple is a unique and totally different object.

In both cases, we have something arising (in a sense) from two reciprocal aspects of nothing.

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
In order for change to be possible, something must change from one thing to another ~ thus more must come from less, which is to say something from nothing.
Not necessarily.
For it is also true that [something] changes into [nothing] from time to time.
An apple rots and turns to dirt.
A subatomic particle winks out of physical existence.

The structure of the reciprocal aspects allows for there to be constant change without forcing ourselves into a paradox.
The closer we are to being right,
The harder it is to admit we're wrong
Reply With Quote