Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:42 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:50 pm
I can't respond to all of the linked post because it would require literal proof that I cannot simply present without a step-by-step reconstruction.

What I've done on my own so far is to develop a set theory but by using only one 'constant': the empty set, as referencing "nothing" OR any possible univeral unkown. Then we don't have to question whether absolute nothing exists.
ANY 'theory' is, more or less, just a GUESS of what COULD BE. I much prefer to just look at what IS only, instead.
That is circular begging. Perhaps you are thinking of direct sensing of some event, what the logicians/linguists refer to as 'denoting' (gerund) or 'denotion' (noun), 'denote' verb (from 'of notice). We cannot always do this. As children we learn by denoting something (or 'pointing' something out, as an example, if one is not looking at your finger). This is 'associative' and BEGS one sense to another, (like seeing an object one is pointing to that they are sitting in and simultaneously saying "chair" until you prove you can replicate the behavior.
So, your 'set theory', which you have developed, on your own, is not what is actually and necessarily true, right, and correct. I will, however, just concentrate on and use what IS actually True, Right, and Correct.

The, so called, "empty set", as referencing "nothing" exists, BUT ONLY in a limited 'space' [but not in the 'space', which you imagine]. There exists 'absolutely nothing' within a limited distance, but obviously 'absolutely nothing' does not, can not, and could NEVER EXIST. This is because of how causality actually works.
You are still begging. I thought I clearly expressed how you can invert the concept of absolutely everything (something you should agree to with clarity) to be identical to the complement of ' absolutely nothing', this suffices to logically demonstrate how 'absolute nothing' is still real or at lest meaningful if you postulate at least 'all' that you believe is real. I truly doubt that I'll get you to agree to me remotely. So I have to give up on tryng with you. Sorry. But if you want to try to honestly understand, get back to me. Your just wasting my time otherwise. Thank you.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:26 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:27 pm

I'm hoping you share the meaning of "argument" to be "the formal set of premises that demonstrate a distinct conclusion" (a 'logical' argument).

Under this assumption, obviously one cannot infer THAT this could not be the case should they no longer be alive to judge. But you can infer this from life inductively from experiencing what you define in common with other living things that you see be 'born' and/or 'die'. That is, you 'extend' your deduced experience of others being born and die to your own life. Note that IF we live beyond this life to some other form of life while maintainng the ability to look back, when you 'die', this may be provable TO YOU, should you pop into another world suddenly upon your perception of death. This too can be questioned. But the point about what you DEFINE about something you perceive outside/beyond yourself as having beginnings and ends, at least suggest it POSSIBLE to be true of Totality, even if not necessarily true. The possibility as presented in sample justly assure you THAT it cannot be determined NOT-POSSIBLE, as some above assert.
It is NOT POSSIBLE, logically nor empirically, for Universe/Totality/Everything/ALL-THERE-IS to have a beginning nor an end. This is because of both what the Universe/et cetera is made up of and because of how 'It' works.

This, of course, is True until a logically sound and valid argument is formed, which could prove otherwise.

Because of causality, itself, a beginning or an ending of Totality/et cetera, Itself, is both logically and physically/empirically IMPOSSIBLE.
You forget that I conditioned the statements about origins.
I do NOT care how 'you', so called, "conditioned the statements about origins", nor do I care about how often 'you' "condition the statements about origins". The word 'origin' in relation to the Universe/Totality/et cetera is a logical and physical/empirical IMPOSSIBILITY. So, 'conditioning' the word 'origin', in relation to the Universe, will just NEVER work.

Have you forgotten that I have EXPLAINED this ALREADY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am I already had extensive discussions with you on this when discussing 'walls' in three coinciding threads about possible exhausted positions of spacial barriers. [walls at the begging, end, or inbetween] I already argued that you cannot literally use a scientific argument about the opposing ends. But to assume that there IS NO ends also would require proof, something that you cannot do.
BUT I CAN and have ALREADY PROVEN this. 'you' were, and STILL appear, NOT OPEN to this. Am I correct?

Also, I NEVER HAVE and still do NOT ASSUME that there is NO 'ends'.

To ASSUME that there are ends, or that there are NO ends, is just as ridiculous as ASSUMING ANY thing else.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am We just cannot use science to argue about them.
We CAN, if and when 'you' use 'science' properly AND correctly?
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am Rather, we need logic to 'measure' the possibilities and NOT draw certain conclusions in absense of knowledge.
But the knowledge has ALREADY been ascertained. This WAS DONE through, and by, 'logical reasoning'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am So the default should be to assume absolutely nothing,
YET, here we are some 'thing', which OBVIOUSLY discounts absolutely NO 'thing'.

Also, and by the way, if you 'default' to ASSUMING, then 'you' will continue on your path of NOT YET KNOWING.

I found the default of BEING OPEN far more revealing, AND REWARDING.

How to be Truly OPEN is by NOT 'assuming' ANY thing at all, AND by just being Truly Honest.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am which is equivalent logically to assuming everything possible.
ASSUMING 'absolutely nothing', to me, is NOT, at all, equivalent logically to assuming 'everything possible'. 'Absolutely nothing', to me, is NOT equivalent at all to 'everything possible'. In fact they are the VERY OPPOSITE of be 'equivalent'.

Besides the fact that ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing can all to easily lead one astray, assuming that 'absolutely nothing' is equivalent to, and especially equivalent 'logically' to, assuming 'everything possible' is just way to many assumptions, which can all to easily lead one even FURTHER astray.

To me, you just say this sort of 'stuff' because this sort of 'stuff' is the only way you know how to make 'your' 'theory' appear to be possibly true.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am Then we try to narrow this down when attempting to determine what is true locally (in our own particular reality at present).
There is ONLY One 'reality' at present.

What do 'you' propose could be ANOTHER 'reality', besides the one 'you' call "our OWN 'particular' 'reality'?

In relation 'causality' and 'the Universe' what is 'true locally' is 'true EVERYWHERE'.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 am
Age wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:42 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:21 pm

I can't respond to all of the linked post because it would require literal proof that I cannot simply present without a step-by-step reconstruction.

What I've done on my own so far is to develop a set theory but by using only one 'constant': the empty set, as referencing "nothing" OR any possible univeral unkown. Then we don't have to question whether absolute nothing exists.
ANY 'theory' is, more or less, just a GUESS of what COULD BE. I much prefer to just look at what IS only, instead.
That is circular begging.
Is this what you see and believe?

To me, what IS is irrefutable.

So, in some sense, it could be seen as, so called, "circular begging". Is this your own phrase? But, if 'It' can NOT be refuted, then there is, literally, nothing more you could say against 'It' anyway. You would just have to agree with 'It' and accept 'It'.

If you agree with and accept the premises, then you will 'have to' agree with AND accept the conclusion.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 am Perhaps you are thinking of direct sensing of some event, what the logicians/linguists refer to as 'denoting' (gerund) or 'denotion' (noun), 'denote' verb (from 'of notice). We cannot always do this. As children we learn by denoting something (or 'pointing' something out, as an example, if one is not looking at your finger). This is 'associative' and BEGS one sense to another, (like seeing an object one is pointing to that they are sitting in and simultaneously saying "chair" until you prove you can replicate the behavior.
I was and am NOT thinking this, so I am NOT sure what you were thinking.

Also, what does "replicating any behavior" have to do with 'theorizing' what COULD BE and/or just LOOKING AT what (actually) IS?

If one is just sitting in, or just looking at, a, so called, "chair" and it is agreed upon that 'THIS' is called a "chair", then what has "replicating this behavior" got to do with what I said? In this example there is nothing to be refuted, nor could be refuted. Whereas, when 'theorizing' it is ALL guessing, which can ALL be refuted.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 am
So, your 'set theory', which you have developed, on your own, is not what is actually and necessarily true, right, and correct. I will, however, just concentrate on and use what IS actually True, Right, and Correct.

The, so called, "empty set", as referencing "nothing" exists, BUT ONLY in a limited 'space' [but not in the 'space', which you imagine]. There exists 'absolutely nothing' within a limited distance, but obviously 'absolutely nothing' does not, can not, and could NEVER EXIST. This is because of how causality actually works.
You are still begging.
Until you EXPLAIN what this actually means, to you, then this is just your OWN view and conclusion.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 am I thought I clearly expressed how you can invert the concept of absolutely everything (something you should agree to with clarity) to be identical to the complement of ' absolutely nothing', this suffices to logically demonstrate how 'absolute nothing' is still real or at lest meaningful if you postulate at least 'all' that you believe is real.
You OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET read or you have COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD what I have written and said.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 am I truly doubt that I'll get you to agree to me remotely.
Okay. But 'doubting' could be to comparative to 'assuming'. BOTH can lead 'you' completely astray, or at least surprise you considerably.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 am So I have to give up on tryng with you. Sorry. But if you want to try to honestly understand, get back to me. Your just wasting my time otherwise. Thank you.
What do you think or believe 'it' is that I am trying to 'understand' here EXACTLY?

Have you forgotten that it is 'you' who has developed some 'theory', which you want 'understood'.

I do NOT do 'theory', as they are completely UNNECESSARY. Especially considering what is directly in front of you.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:34 am
What do you think or believe 'it' is that I am trying to 'understand' here EXACTLY?

Have you forgotten that it is 'you' who has developed some 'theory', which you want 'understood'.

I do NOT do 'theory', as they are completely UNNECESSARY. Especially considering what is directly in front of you.
Then you have no purpose to discussing this with anyone beyond trying to impose some impossible burden of convincing you differently for anything. You assert a definitive closed mind THAT any theory or opinion of anyone's is necessary. Therefore you have no justification to debate when you simplistically believe that all realities speak for themselves. Who gave you the authority to speak for reality? If we can see this by default, then there is no need to complain if WE SEE something differrent than you.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:23 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:10 am
Dimebag wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:22 pm The name itself implies that there is no such “thing” as “no-thing”.

Thingness does not apply to nothing.

What then is nothing?

Even that statement does not make sense. Nothing isn’t. Is implies thingness.

So nothing is merely negation of thingness?

Yet surely for there to be something it must stand in differentiation with an existent nothing?

Is space nothing?

We call it space like it’s a thing, yet it’s existence is only known due to the lack of thingness.

Physics proposes that even space, the closest thing to nothing, is something, quantum foam, virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

And even space is thought to be composed of “dimensions”. These may or may not actually be real things.

Others propose that space itself is holographic, meaning it is merely a projection which is actually existent on 3 “planes” at right angles which contain information on their surface, and project their information to create a sense of space and thingness.

Under this view, space or nothingness, is the lack of information contained within 3 perpendicular planes.

Nothing can never be known. The known is thingness.

These are all just words trying to get at the ungettable.
Nothing is absence of any thing which make complete sence.
'Nothing is absence of ANY thing' might make complete sense, but this 'nothing' exists in imagination only.
Not if we accept that there was a beginning. There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:23 am It is not logically possible nor is it empirically possible for there to be an absence of ANY thing, EVER.
That is a possibility as it is illustrated in the last comment.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:08 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm The principle of causality (PoC) says that everything has a cause. PoC, however, applies to material things. Nothing is not material. Therefore, PoC does not apply to it.

This also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God.
It does apply, since no cause means no effect. This can be as important as knowing the causes and effects. As Adorno says this indeterminacy or abstract negation, which being thus has in itself, is what external as well as inner reflection expresses, in that it equates it with nothingness, declares it as an empty thought-figure, as nothingness. - Or one may express it, that because being is that which is devoid of determination, it is not the (affirmative) determinacy, which it is, not being, but nothingness. Indeterminacy is tacitly used as a synonym for the indeterminate. In its concept disappears that which it is a concept of; it becomes equated to the indeterminate as its determination, and this permits the identification of the indeterminate with nothing.
Do you believe in God?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am

How, EXACTLY, does your first three sentences here "also indicate" that 'nothing to something' is possible?
The PoC means that you need an agent to cause, by cause I mean to go from one state of affair to another one.
So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?
Yes.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am If yes, then what do you propose is 'that agent'?
You can call it God. I, however, have an argument against God. Nothing is initial state as I discussed it in the previous post. Therefore, nothing to something is possible.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am PoC however does not apply to nothing
Well how was 'nothing' caused, if not by an agent?

What has caused the 'nothing' to exist, which does exist?
Nothing is the initial state as I argued in the previous post so there is no need for something to cause it.

Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am which means that you don't need an agent for going from one state of affair, nothing in here, to another one, something in here.
To me, you appear to make "conclusions", from the most illogical sense of reasoning.

You "argument" goes, and correct me if I am wrong here:

P1. To cause the action of going from one state of affair to another state of affair an agent is needed.
P2. Principle of causality does not apply to nothing.
C. Therefore, no agent is needed for going from nothing (in here) to something (in here).

Is this an "argument"?

If no, then what is your "argument".
Sort of. Let me change the argument a little

P1) PoC states that an agent is needed for going from one state of affair to another one
P2) PoC does not apply to nothing
C1) Therefore, the process of nothing (the first state of the affair) to something (the second state of the affair) is possible
P3) There was nothing in the starting and there is something now
C2) From C1 and P3 one can conclude that there is no need for an agent, so call God.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am But if yes, then:
Premise 1 makes sense to me.
Good to here that.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am Premise 2 is NOT based on ANY actual evidence, which I have been exposed to YET. So, if you have ANY evidence, then please bring it forward.
I have to show two things in here: A) An agent, so-called, God cannot bring something out of nothing, and B) There was nothing in the beginning.

A: Let assume that it is possible. There was however nothing including time but God at the starting point. The process of nothing to something is a ghange. You need time for any change. This means that you need time for the creation of time. This is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, God cannot create something out of nothing.

B: This is shown in the previous post.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am Your conclusion is based on some ASSUMPTION that something (some thing) was created from absolutely nothing [no thing], which again I NOT been privy to ANY such evidence.
Actually, there is evidence for this. Pair of electron and positron pop out of nothing all the time. My argument also supports this too.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am In fact from what I have 'observed', seen and experienced, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.
Our experience is classical and does not apply to the quantum regime and also the beginning.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am And, how does all of this then conclude that there is no need for God? How do you KNOW that 'God' [whatever you imagine that to be] was not needed to turn 'nothing' into 'something'?
That is argued in the previous comment.
Was it REALLY?

From what I have observed in your comments is just you expressing your OWN BELIEFS in many different ways as though they are already true, right, and correct. From what I have seen in your comments you are just 'trying' absolutely any thing, which you think, or believe, backs up and supports your already held BELIEFS.
I hope that things are clear by now.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am What appears to me here is you are just proposing absolutely anything, which you think, and hope, will back up and support your already held beliefs.

For example, WHY even 'presume' that there was 'nothing' before 'something' came along?
That leads to regress which is not acceptable.
In 'who's' "world" is 'regress' NOT acceptable?

If 'you' or "others" can not arrive at a useful conclusion, then so be it. But through 'regression' ALL the meaningful ANSWERS become REVEALED.

By the way, what does 'regress' actually mean, to you?
Regress means that you are dealing with an endless chain of things or in other words, there is always something before or after another thing in this endless set of things. Well, if there was always something in the past then there is no way to reach from now to the ultimate past so it is impossible to reach from the ultimate past to now too. That is way the regress is not acceptable.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:41 am There are also to many other numerous flaws and faults that l did not even mention in your thinking here.
What are them?
To me, what 'they' are, are:

1. You BELIEVE, without ANY actual PROOF, that causality only applies to material things.

2. So, EVERY thing else you write here, in this thread, is based solely on only 'THAT' what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, and NOT on what IS actually True.

3. Your ARGUMENTS end up being unsound and/or invalid because of 1 and 2, which can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post here, in this thread.

4. Your "CONCLUSION" in your opening post that your own first three sentences "also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God", is completely and utterly absurd and irrational.

5. You have CONCLUDED that "nothing to something is possible" based on nothing but your own ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS.

6. And then to 'automatically' ARRIVE AT and CONCLUDE that this then MEANS there is no need for God is just illogical to the extreme.

So, what the flaws and faults are, in your thinking here, is;
The ASSUMPTIONS you make, and the CONCLUSIONS you arrive at, come from the BELIEFS you already have.
You then use your own BELIEFS, ONLY, to back up and support your own newly formed ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which were obtained previously from ill-gotten BELIEFS in the first place.

The MAIN flaw and fault in your thinking here is;

You use your OWN ill-gotten BELIEFS to LOOK AT and SEE the "world' from, which is how you form your ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which is a form of 'circular reasoning', or what could also be called and labeled as a form of 'regression', itself.
I hope that things are clear now.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

Y'all are literally arguing about nothing.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am
AlexW wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:16 am
Nothing to something is only possible when something to nothing is equally possible.
True. In fact, change is not possible if something to nothing was not possible.
How does this 'logically' follow?

Something to nothing has NOT yet occurred, unless some proof is provided. But until then 'change', itself, NOT 'not possible'.

Change is not just possible but is in fact impossible to NOT happen.

There could not, logically nor empirically, exist 'not change'. But 'something to nothing' has still NOT occurred, as 'something to nothing' is just NOT logically and empirically IMPOSSIBLE as 'nothing to something' is.
That I already elaborated. Moreover, you cannot have any empirical evidence for the existence of nothing because you cannot experience anything when there is nothing to experience.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am To elaborate think of a change, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist since you cannot have change.
Provide examples of what X actually is and what Y actually is to SHOW how X and Y, supposedly, cannot coexist?
X and Y can be the state of a falling apple. An apple cannot coexist in both places at the same time.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am Therefore, X has to vanishes (what you are suggesting, something to nothing) in order to live room for Y to take place (which I am suggesting, nothing to something).
The word 'vanishing' does NOT necessarily mean 'into nothing'. The word 'vanishing' here is just referring to 'change', itself.
By that, I mean that something turns into nothing.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am The order in the a universe however requires a mind.
If the order in thee, One and only, Universe, supposedly, requires a, so called, "mind", then is this "mind", the 'agent', which you refer to as being needed to 'cause' or to make happen from 'going from one state of affair to another state of affair'?
Yes. Mind is needed for order though. Otherwise, you can have a chain of nothing to something which has no order in it, complete chaos.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am And, if this "mind" is what is 'needed' 'to cause', which by the way is the same as 'to create', then what does this "mind" 'need', or 'require'?
Mind doesn't need anything to create/cause.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am Who and/or what is the owner or controller of this "mind", which supposedly 'the order in the Universe' REQUIRES?
No one.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

Advocate wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:50 pm There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.
There was a beginning sine otherwise you are dealing with a regress. There was nothing in the beginning though: There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

[quote=bahman post_id=481590 time=1606333384 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481584 time=1606330207 user_id=15238]
There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.
[/quote]
There was a beginning sine otherwise you are dealing with a regress. There was nothing in the beginning though: There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
[/quote]

It is not a regress to say that certain words are stand-ins for that which is impossible for us to understand, such as any word that references infinity, such as nothing. You cannot provide an example of nothing, so what are you possibly even talking about? The word is acting as a stand-in for a concept which literally cannot even be talked about meaningfully. There is no plausible much less necessary way for there ever to be nothing. Even so-called empty space is brimming with energy and things we have no notion of at our scale of reference. The word "nothing" literally always refers to the lack of some specific things or categories of thing when used for practical purposes. Any other purposes are likewise meaningless.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:38 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:08 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm The principle of causality (PoC) says that everything has a cause. PoC, however, applies to material things. Nothing is not material. Therefore, PoC does not apply to it.

This also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God.
It does apply, since no cause means no effect. This can be as important as knowing the causes and effects. As Adorno says this indeterminacy or abstract negation, which being thus has in itself, is what external as well as inner reflection expresses, in that it equates it with nothingness, declares it as an empty thought-figure, as nothingness. - Or one may express it, that because being is that which is devoid of determination, it is not the (affirmative) determinacy, which it is, not being, but nothingness. Indeterminacy is tacitly used as a synonym for the indeterminate. In its concept disappears that which it is a concept of; it becomes equated to the indeterminate as its determination, and this permits the identification of the indeterminate with nothing.
Do you believe in God?
I beleive in nothing.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

Advocate wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:50 pm There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.
What better than to recognize that "absolutely nothing" suffices as the particular identity to "no cause" then!
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=481659 time=1606392499 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481584 time=1606330207 user_id=15238]
There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.
[/quote]
What better than to recognize that "absolutely nothing" suffices as the particular identity to "no cause" then!
[/quote]

There's no such thing as no cause either. Just like nothing, there may be always a particular lack of cause; "I ordered that cheeseburger for no reason." isn't actually no cause at all.
Post Reply