Is ‘something’ logically necessary?
This has to do with the “why is there something rather than nothing?” question. I’ve been going over this in my head for awhile now and I came to the conclusion that there has to be something necessarily. The reason I think this is because it seems that an absolute, philosophical ‘nothing’ would make ‘something’ impossible. But we know that there is something by virtue of the fact that we are here now. Therefore, I think ‘nothing’ is impossible. If ‘nothing’ is impossible, then ‘something’ is logically necessary because there is no opposite or alternative to it — it cannot not be.
But I’m unsure of my conclusion, which is why I’m posting this question here in the hopes of seeing others’ perspectives on this.
But I’m unsure of my conclusion, which is why I’m posting this question here in the hopes of seeing others’ perspectives on this.
Comments (34)
Hence,
If time existed in nothingness, and there was a possibility of the big bang, then it becomes necessarily so that something came out from nothing.
But couldn’t it be the case that something existed timelessly prior to the beginning of what we perceive as time?
Quoting Shawn
Not sure if I’m following this. There would be no time in nothingness, at least in how I conceive of it. Time is something. Also, wouldn’t the possibility of the big bang itself be something?
Since there is something, a lack of anything is out, plus there is no sequence in time form nonbeing to being because 'Nothing' has no time, nor anything else, nor can 'Nothing' have any properties, nor can 'it' be.
So, given that Something has no alternative, it is everywhere and continuous because it cannot have any spacers of 'Nothing' in it. Because it is continuous and never created, it is partless and is thus the simplest state, for a composite cannot be fundamental. As having no parts the Something is unbreakable into parts as well as being unmakeable from parts, thus it cannot be generated or go away; so it is eternal, as being ever, and there isn't anything else but it.
The Something cannot be still, else naught would happen; so, we can assign movement to it as a truth, thus it is energetic.
Forms from it cannot be new and different from the Something, thus forms such as elementary particles can only become through rearrangements of the Something. Since the elementaries are rather persistent, there is a way that these lumps of Something can be made to be stable. We see that they occur at certain rungs of energy levels and not others, which we call quanta, so again, there is something that allows for these steady formations.
Since electrons or photons sent even one at a time through two slits makes an interference pattern, they must have a spread out wave nature, indicating also that they are not pinpoints. While we refer to them as elementary particles, they, of course, are secondary, and so they are elementary only as ‘particles'.
Look up QFT (Quantum Field Theory)!
Inconceivable!! Truly a dizzying intellect. Lol.
To continue the philosophy, we can now refer to the Something as the Permanent. What it forms are mostly temporaries, the entire universe, even, although photons don’t decay by themselves and ought to be all that’s sparsely left at the End as forms.
Being of necessity, having no alternative, the Permanent requires no creation by ‘God’. Just as we see in the universe, the progression up to now went from the simple to the composite to the more and more complex.
The Permanent ‘lesser’ simplest makes for the ‘greater’ in terms of complexity, yet the ‘lesser’ always wins because it ever remains, for the ‘greater’ complexities don’t last. Even the elementaries can get annihilated.
The religious template of the lesser always having to come from the greater was always doomed, lest an infinite regress ensues, for one, and this is not seen, for two, and the Permanent is of necessity, for three. The notion of ‘God’ fails.
nothingness, death, darkness, emptiness, unconsciousness, are all intrinsically and absolutely impossible. they have never existed, they do not exist now, and they never will exist. in any amount
they are just empty words in the ignorant and unenlightened mind
I've never understood this idea personally. We see, "things" and we assume there is space between them. There is space between atoms, between quarks, between everything. Something exists within the space of nothingness always seemed more reasonable to me, then the idea that something could cease to be.
So how is your conclusion of whether there could be nothing, or whether there must always be something, is more of an emotional argument than one of proof. Do you have a motivation for wanting something to always be, or is it just something you feel is right?
Necessity is dealt with in modal logic, the usual version fo which makes use of possible worlds. On that account you might be taken to be asking "is there a possible world with nothing in it", and there seems no reason to suppose not.
"Something" is also troublesome, having at least two interpretations
1. Being the subject fo a predicate: "Something is green". This is dealt with in predicate calculus. There seems to be no contradiction in saying "nothing is green".
2. Being an individual: Paul Michael exists. This places Paul Michael as part of the domain of the logic, all ready to be spoken about. In that regard it is a presumption rather than a deduction.
The difficulties that ensue here derive from parsing the question into logical form - that is, from working out what the question means. As it stands, the question remains unclear. Hence the fluffy answers hereabouts.
One way to look at this: you’ve rediscovered the cogito. The ‘necessity’ comes from asking the question at all — if there were nothing, there would be no question.
1. If something exists, there's a reason why it exists. (Watch this corner)
2. If something is true, there's a reason why it's true.
3. If something happens, there's a reason why it happens.
There's something. There's a reason why so i.e. something was/is necessary. Ergo, nothing is impossible. I "proved" the wrong statement but something is better than nothing, right?
Also, why do we suppose there's no nothing in our universe? What about space? Perhaps nothing and something go hand in hand (Democritus believed the void is a necessary component of reality). The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" becomes meaningless then, no? There are both!
Might be fun to think about, but there’s no profit in it.
Time is not something. Time is not tangible. Time like math is an abstract. It is an invention of our minds and applied to what exists.
According to the explanation of the cosmos I heard last night, nothing existed before the big bang and then gases were the first to exist, and existence, as we know it today, took a very long time to evolve out of nothing, starting with hydrogen and helium.
To say existence is necessary rules out any further explanation—if something can’t not exist then that just is the explanation for its existence. Once explanation runs out in this way you can just as well posit brute contingency: existence might not have been but it just is and there’s no explanation.
'Nothing' lacks time, so there's no "very long time".
I was thinking about the "from nothing" part. Since there is no time passing in the lack of anything called 'Nothing', it's not like there was 'Nothing' and then there was something; so, I'd claim that the something that is always there is what banged. Besides, 'Nothing' cannot have being and so there is no alternative to something being.
That cosmic and biological evolution took long also indicates a purely natural and physical process continuing, and so I think that universes can ever happen from the whatever something that is ever a what.
It could be that a new bang awaits behind us. If the universe expands because it does so on a 4d space. When the present universe has accelerated into infinity, a new 3d bang can bang at the 4d singularity behind us.
Assuming a possible world (i.e. something) is a phase space (a field – not a "container" with or without contents), is there a 'possible world that is not a possible world'? If no, then there is a possible world. There is no 'possible world that is not a possible world', therefore there is a possible world (i.e. something).
Why?
(NB: Mere 'nothing' is a hole in, or discontinuity of, something; or minimally structured / energetic phase-state of something.)
I was considering:
Quoting Paul Michael
As basically a truth claim. It's tentative, sure, and I respect if you did not mean it as a powerful assertion or conclusion in an argument. I did just want to investigate it.
To the same point,
Quoting 180 Proof
I see more truth claims here. Again, maybe they are only in service of broader speculation, but I will still endeavor to pick them apart, (because I think its fun).
How do we know that abstract categorical concepts such as "Nothing-ness" have any applicable use in the current investigation. What is the underlying epistemological claim according to which your distinctions are made?
I do not see how it is possible (or even, why it is really useful) to make such abstract postulations, about big concepts like nothingness and somethingness, (unless its just for fun) when there are many more pressing and emotionally enriching questions to be asking. I guess, even if there is a strong epistemological basis to your propositions, how does knowing that somethingness is necessary improve our understanding or intellectual position from before?
In short, "Why is there something rather than nothing" is, to my understanding, a far, far less interesting question than "given that (it at least really looks like) there is something, what should we do next?".
I'm using it. Others are and have used it in this manner. What grounds do you have to doubt this practice? Apparently none. :roll:
Ok you're right lol. But the more interesting part of my critique are the last two paragraphs. I am sincerely curious about that.
Well, for starters (my two nickels), this reasoning eliminates idle, pseudo-questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which obscure far more than they clarify our discourses.
All we can do, IME, is strive creatively to ask better, more probative, questions.
I agree there are no pinpoints in nature. The calculations in QFT considers particles as point-like though. Who says the particles are not actually changing all paths continuously, giving the impression of a wavy spreading only. Which means they are not moving on a spectrum of paths in parallel and simultaneously but on one at a time.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why is this a pseudo question?
Quoting Raymond
The only 'answer' to an ultimate (categorical) Why-question which doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitates an infinite regress) is There is no ultimate (categorical) Why. Otherwise, more broadly, pseudo-questions are those which are context-free (i.e. what counts as 'a relevant and sufficient answer' is not specified) can only be begged, not answered.
But what if the answer doesn't beg the question? And I don't mean the answer that there isn't a final answer. What if the final answer is "the gods"? Can you ask about them why they are there rather than nothing?
The grounds we walk on.
Is nothing
i) in and of itself, a contradiction?
ii) a prelude to a contradiction?
Please pick up where I left off...