Why Nothingness Cosmogony is Nonsense
I’m on a bit of a kick here, despite being well aware of how obscure these discussions are and how little this affects the overall philosophical narrative. Still, this issue has bothered me for a long time and I’d like to give my criticism of it here. Let me be clear that I identify as an atheist. Still, that doesn’t mean I agree with every cosmological concept advanced by atheists. There is one cosmological concept in particular that is, frankly, complete nonsense, yet which seems to have a hold over some of the brightest minds in existence. I find this issue has everything to do with semantics.
Nothing, in the narrowest, most authentic sense of the word, implies literally no thing whatsoever – not just no material objects. Nothing implies just that: nothing. Any definition of nothingness which, in effect, allows for anything at all except complete nothingness is, in fact, not nothingness. This should be obvious semantically.
1. The existence of any reality at all – whatever reality’s true nature – is something.
2. The existence of something implies an innate potential for something to exist. If there is no innate potential for something to exist, nothing can exist.
3. Given something’s existence (i.e. reality), there was, in fact, an innate potential for reality’s existence, whatever the precise nature of that potential.
4. The existence of an innate potential for something is not nothing.
5. Therefore, given reality’s existence, given that reality’s existence requires an innate potential for reality’s existence by the very fact reality exists and could not exist otherwise without some form of innate potential, and given that an innate potential qualifies as something and is not technically nothing, reality did not and could not possibly have originated from pure nothingness, as there is at least some form of innate potential for reality to exist required for its very existence.
If no potential for reality ever existed, reality would not exist. Logically, reality’s very existence implies some innate potential for its existence. This cannot be rationally denied. Notice I have not once said what the nature of that potential was. I have simply stated that, by necessity, for reality to exist, some potential for reality’s existence must exist innately, or else there would be no reality as it exists and only pure nothingness. As such, the existence of an innate potential is not actual nothingness. Actual nothingness implies no potential for anything at all. If there exists any potential for anything whatsoever, that is technically something, and so is not pure nothingness. Atheistic cosmologists err severely in their notion that the cosmos could have originated from literally nothing. It’s nonsense by the very fact said cosmologists posit the existence of a cosmos at all, which by necessity implies an innate potential for the existence of the cosmos. That innate potential, whatever its nature, is not nothing.
Would any atheists care to try to explain how the cosmogonic potential for reality’s existence can authentically be deemed nothingness? I’d be curious to see the kind of mental gymnastics you lot pull in trying to frame potentiality as nothingness. It’s absurd, really. Theists laugh at the concept of cosmogonic nothingness because it’s a nonsensical notion. Even theists, with all their flaws, can see it’s pure nonsense.
- D.L.X.
Nothing, in the narrowest, most authentic sense of the word, implies literally no thing whatsoever – not just no material objects. Nothing implies just that: nothing. Any definition of nothingness which, in effect, allows for anything at all except complete nothingness is, in fact, not nothingness. This should be obvious semantically.
1. The existence of any reality at all – whatever reality’s true nature – is something.
2. The existence of something implies an innate potential for something to exist. If there is no innate potential for something to exist, nothing can exist.
3. Given something’s existence (i.e. reality), there was, in fact, an innate potential for reality’s existence, whatever the precise nature of that potential.
4. The existence of an innate potential for something is not nothing.
5. Therefore, given reality’s existence, given that reality’s existence requires an innate potential for reality’s existence by the very fact reality exists and could not exist otherwise without some form of innate potential, and given that an innate potential qualifies as something and is not technically nothing, reality did not and could not possibly have originated from pure nothingness, as there is at least some form of innate potential for reality to exist required for its very existence.
If no potential for reality ever existed, reality would not exist. Logically, reality’s very existence implies some innate potential for its existence. This cannot be rationally denied. Notice I have not once said what the nature of that potential was. I have simply stated that, by necessity, for reality to exist, some potential for reality’s existence must exist innately, or else there would be no reality as it exists and only pure nothingness. As such, the existence of an innate potential is not actual nothingness. Actual nothingness implies no potential for anything at all. If there exists any potential for anything whatsoever, that is technically something, and so is not pure nothingness. Atheistic cosmologists err severely in their notion that the cosmos could have originated from literally nothing. It’s nonsense by the very fact said cosmologists posit the existence of a cosmos at all, which by necessity implies an innate potential for the existence of the cosmos. That innate potential, whatever its nature, is not nothing.
Would any atheists care to try to explain how the cosmogonic potential for reality’s existence can authentically be deemed nothingness? I’d be curious to see the kind of mental gymnastics you lot pull in trying to frame potentiality as nothingness. It’s absurd, really. Theists laugh at the concept of cosmogonic nothingness because it’s a nonsensical notion. Even theists, with all their flaws, can see it’s pure nonsense.
- D.L.X.
Comments (35)
Aren't you really just saying that reality is possible?
Ok, well first of all you are confusing atheists with cosmologist and theoretical physicists. This plus your use of “you lot” in reference to atheists makes me think you arent being totally honest about being an atheist. What would Jesus say?
Second, your argument relies on 2) very heavily, and I dont think it supports the weight.
Quoting Randy333
Something that exists cannot have an “innate” potential to exist, it already exists. A balloon doesnt have the “innate” potential to be a balloon, it IS a balloon.
People used to think that the vacuum of space is empty, that there is nothing in it, but turns out there are a lot of things, a lot of stuff passing through (photons, gravity ...). So when they talk of particles popping in and out of existence in the vacuum of space, as if they appeared from nothing and disappeared into nothing, well it’s a misnomer, they don’t arise from nothing, they arise from something and they turn into some other thing. Same goes with the big bang, if it happened it came from something.
And just because some things are invisible to some instruments, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, that doesn’t mean they are nothing.
Forget about modal realism; there couldn't have been nothing simply because nothing cannot be; it's a contradiction in terms.
Or in modal language, a possible world is not a possible world if it is not anything.
Stephen Hawkings said in "A brief history of time" that the notion of turtle on top of infinity turtles isn't completely ridicoulous. I do agree with your OP. Even some (some) naturalists would argue that its a possibility the universe and all its mass completely or to some extent loops continoooosuuusly in all its coming and going. Basically the universe changes internally but not externally. I could have been more articulute in how i said that but i think you get what i'm saying.
For the universe to form out of nothing, it almost makes you think, how would someone absolutely prove without a doubt that something wasn't always there.
Yahweh means "I am" or "I am what i am"
Is he over a long period of time questioning where he himself and his own character traits came from or originated. I would argue this train of thought combined with a lack of entities or other beings would be a source of depression or serious depression.
Basically what i'm getting at the universe might just loop back over and over again. I'm sure there are other viable alternatives.
Wouldn't a meta-reality require a creature to view or percieve a "fake" world? When i say creature you have to remember that we are made up of micro stars called electrons and protons and each electron is astronomicaly far away from each proton. Obviously this is a vast over simplification. How do you feel about collective conceeeence or collective soul?
If it is necessary nothingness, than no. I think absolute time and space is this nothingness
Quoting christian2017
Our souls are not substances. Only material things are. So I think you can say we are all one. One piece of nothing, to be more precise. But you are your body. You are not both your soul and your body
Is "necessary nothingness" something i can google or is that your own phrase/notion? Can you define "necessary nothingness"?
Time is the iteration of the movement of particles. A clock going 100k mph is going to tell time slower than a clock sitting in my bedroom. Special relativity dictates time does exist but the only standard for time is the iteration of the movement of particles. I'm not going to go into the book "A brief history of time" and vectors right now.
Why do people say spirits and souls aren't substances? I'm not saying they are wrong, but how would they prove that (assuming they exist). When someone (theist or deist) says a soul has no substance, i'm not sure what that means. Some say material is nothing more than some sort of cosmic dance or vibration of spirit or in other words spirit is substance and material is a manifestation of the movement of spirit. I'm sure this could be classified as mumbo jumbo but this whole conversation is wierd.
I don't think something that thinks (you and i) can be said to be nothing. It appears we are both open to the possibility of collective consceeeeence or collective soul.
Then the question becomes why does the innate potential for reality exist? Why are there possible worlds?
That's just semantics though. We don't need to talk about nothing existing. The question is why anything exists.
But why?
Questions (and answers) are not separable from semantics.
Rearranging words to answer a question either shows the answer to be trivially true or it isn't a meaningful answer. It's just a word game.
Compare that to asking questions about cosmology. You don't rearrange words to find an answer.
The question is without context and hence is just a word game. Cosmological questions are scientific, and thus contextual, questions and are therefore not simply word games.
You are correct. You basically argued for the truth of ex nihilo nihil fit
You're conclusion can be stated this way:
[I]Existence is (a posteriori) metaphysically necessary.[/i]
Not a priori? Then what does this answer? It seems that in a crisis philosophers tend to believe the world is eternal and necessary. Just as we have the term "stream of consciousness in the West, in Sanskrit it's translated to English to say Citta-sa?t?na. Focusing on consciousness, not science, is what leads people best to see "something coming from nothing". The middle of Being and Time where it addresses death is a good place to start
Ye, but the spiritual is not an object in any sense. God for theist even is an object. The world is real, but it is unreal in relation to and comparison with nothing. As Thich Nhat Hanh calls it, we live in an “interbeing.” Another writer says "Ultimately we suffer because we grasp after things thinking they are fixed, substantial, real and capable of being possessed by ego." It seems everyone is doing that. Maybe they have to. There is a healthy way to do it though, in the philosophical, Hegelian, Platonic tradition. Underlying those thoughts though would be those of the Buddha
Correct- the op argument only establishes a posteriori necessity.
Stll, we do know that existence is at least metaphyiscally possible a priori. The residual question is: is nothingness possible?
There is no nothingness possible world, because a world is defined by its existents, not by negative facts. This provides an epistemic basis for believing nothingness is impossible, and therefore existence is necessary.
The zero-energy model says there is no energy in the world. I don't agree with it, but that is smart people saying nothingness CAN exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko
That's a great video which helped me see a vague form of causality behind the world, causality causing time itself, therefore doing away with the necessity of an eternal universe and therefore a necessary universe
Zero energy models assume a quantum system exists. That ain't nothing.
As the name implies, it says all ENERGY in the cosmos is zero. So something can come from nothing says Hawking's in Hawking's Universe documentary. I agree something comes from nothing but not that the world is zero energy
I know he calls this "something from nothing." Laurence Krauss and Alexandar Vilenkin make the same assertion, but it's still not a true nothingness. Here's an excerpt of a review of Krauss' book. The criticism is equally applicable to each of them:
[i]“It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electromagnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing--the laws of relativistic quantum field theories--are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on--and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story[/i]
Lawrence Krauss actually does think science can speak about nothing. A lot of physicist do. As I said, I don't agree with them. My approach is from Hegel, Buddhism, and philosophy in general. Not from science
They define "nothing" as an absence of particles (matter).