Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

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.
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=478732 time=1604611009 user_id=12593]
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.
[/quote]

There is no such thing as 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 »

Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:55 pm
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.
There is no such thing as nothing.
How do you know that there was not such a thing as nothing?
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=479262 time=1604966897 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479181 time=1604865358 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=478732 time=1604611009 user_id=12593]
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.
[/quote]

There is no such thing as nothing.
[/quote]
How do you know that there was not such a thing as nothing?
[/quote]

in 100% of all examples, i can show you what is missing explicitly. A lack of anything at all wouldn't be any thing we could talk about. Empty space exists as a relationship between other things.
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: Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:24 am
bahman wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:08 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:55 pm

There is no such thing as nothing.
How do you know that there was not such a thing as nothing?
in 100% of all examples, i can show you what is missing explicitly. A lack of anything at all wouldn't be any thing we could talk about. Empty space exists as a relationship between other things.
A lack of anything at all means a state of affair.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Dimebag »

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.
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 »

To actually understand this requires introducing "absolute" and "relative" nothing.

Only an absolute state of nothing can suffice as an ORIGIN to everything because at that stage, it is BOTH nothing in meaning while also something true about Totality, as ONE fact, or a 'something'. Also, given an origin in absolute nothing, if true, all of everything we conceive as 'somethings' have to be derived from nothing. But how? ...

By the fact that in such a possible Totality being absolutely nothing, it has no means to require remaining nothing because something, namely a law that could possibly exist to prevent the state of nothing to change, is not able to care whether it is breaking some law or not.

Everything can be understood best by assuming absolutely everything, which is logically equivalent to no reality on the fundamental level. Reality is the 'manifestation' of abstract rules, just as the meaning of numbers are abstract.

By the way, the caveat here is IF there is an absolute 'origin'.

A relative nothing would be similar to the unending continuity of all points in space (or spaces). Take any physical thing you like and imagine dividing it up into smaller and smaller intervals that approach nothing. The question is whether you can reach this or not. IF not, then a quanta of some smallest unit would have to exist. But then how could it HAVE size at all other than 'nothing' by meaning?

Zeno's paradoxes addresses these issues and demonstrates the problems associated with understanding a meaning for 'zero' (probably a name derived from Zeno, or that he was labeled a 'zero' for being so confusing to many?) The best one relating to this concern is to the Arrow paradox. They didn't have photographs back then. But Zeno expressed imagining a frozen 'image' of an arrow. The question is to how one can tell the difference between any possible directions the arrow would go if time were set free. For a modern example, given a picture of an arrow taken with a background of the sky, you cannot tell whether the next 'frame' will be moving left, right, up, nor down. This was the paradox. What could be at a single point in space that holds nothing yet 'knows' where it will go next?

The answer, in my opinion, is similar to the Quantum Mechanical thought experiment of a cat being both dead and alive: All possibilities exist but form different patterns to which create distinctly different 'stories', or "worlds". As such, then a world exists for absolutely every possibility.

[Note that if absolutely everything exists, then so do 'impossibilities'. What is impossible would be a relative fact about one specific universe. The other possibilities exist but in discrete universes that are exclusive to each other. Thus this can be both 'true' and 'false' of Totality. ]
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=479999 time=1605395655 user_id=11118]
To actually understand this requires introducing "absolute" and "relative" [i]nothing[/i].

Only an absolute state of nothing can suffice as an ORIGIN to everything because at that stage, it is BOTH nothing in meaning while also something true about Totality, as ONE fact, or a 'something'. Also, given an origin in absolute nothing, if true, all of everything we conceive as 'somethings' have to be derived from nothing. But how? ...

By the fact that in such a possible Totality being absolutely nothing, it has no means to require remaining nothing because something, namely a law that could possibly exist to prevent the state of nothing to change, is not able to care whether it is breaking some law or not.

Everything can be understood best by assuming absolutely everything, which is logically equivalent to no reality on the fundamental level. Reality is the 'manifestation' of abstract rules, just as the meaning of numbers are abstract.

By the way, the caveat here is IF there is an absolute 'origin'.

A relative nothing would be similar to the unending continuity of all points in space (or spaces). Take any physical thing you like and imagine dividing it up into smaller and smaller intervals that approach nothing. The question is whether you can reach this or not. IF not, then a quanta of some smallest unit would have to exist. But then how could it HAVE size at all other than 'nothing' by meaning?

Zeno's paradoxes addresses these issues and demonstrates the problems associated with understanding a meaning for 'zero' (probably a name derived from Zeno, or that he was labeled a 'zero' for being so confusing to many?) The best one relating to this concern is to the Arrow paradox. They didn't have photographs back then. But Zeno expressed imagining a frozen 'image' of an arrow. The question is to how one can tell the difference between any possible directions the arrow would go if time were set free. For a modern example, given a picture of an arrow taken with a background of the sky, you cannot tell whether the next 'frame' will be moving left, right, up, nor down. This was the paradox. What could be at a single point in space that holds nothing yet 'knows' where it will go next?

The answer, in my opinion, is similar to the Quantum Mechanical thought experiment of a cat being both dead and alive: All possibilities exist but form different patterns to which create distinctly different 'stories', or "worlds". As such, then a world exists for absolutely every possibility.

[Note that if absolutely everything exists, then so do 'impossibilities'. What is impossible would be a relative fact about one specific universe. The other possibilities exist but in discrete universes that are exclusive to each other. Thus this can be both 'true' and 'false' of Totality. ]
[/quote]

Much simpler version: there's no such thing as absolute nothing.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

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.
How, EXACTLY, does your first three sentences here "also indicate" that 'nothing to something' is possible?

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'?

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?

There are also to many other numerous flaws and faults that l did not even mention in your thinking here.
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: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am To actually understand this requires introducing "absolute" and "relative" nothing.

Only an absolute state of nothing can suffice as an ORIGIN to everything because at that stage, it is BOTH nothing in meaning while also something true about Totality, as ONE fact, or a 'something'. Also, given an origin in absolute nothing, if true, all of everything we conceive as 'somethings' have to be derived from nothing. But how? ...

By the fact that in such a possible Totality being absolutely nothing, it has no means to require remaining nothing because something, namely a law that could possibly exist to prevent the state of nothing to change, is not able to care whether it is breaking some law or not.

Everything can be understood best by assuming absolutely everything, which is logically equivalent to no reality on the fundamental level. Reality is the 'manifestation' of abstract rules, just as the meaning of numbers are abstract.

By the way, the caveat here is IF there is an absolute 'origin'.
For there to be an absolute 'origin', then that 'origin' would have to be logically AND empirically possible.
An absolute 'origin' is not logically, nor empirically, possible.
To arrive at a conclusion about an absolute 'origin' that existed is just a fallacy, or exists because of faulty reasoning.
An absolute 'origin', therefore, exists in imagination only.

Absolute 'nothing' also exists only in imagination.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am A relative nothing would be similar to the unending continuity of all points in space (or spaces).
A relative 'nothing' is a continuity of all points in space (or spaces) but not unending.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am Take any physical thing you like and imagine dividing it up into smaller and smaller intervals that approach nothing. The question is whether you can reach this or not. IF not, then a quanta of some smallest unit would have to exist. But then how could it HAVE size at all other than 'nothing' by meaning?

Zeno's paradoxes addresses these issues and demonstrates the problems associated with understanding a meaning for 'zero' (probably a name derived from Zeno, or that he was labeled a 'zero' for being so confusing to many?) The best one relating to this concern is to the Arrow paradox. They didn't have photographs back then. But Zeno expressed imagining a frozen 'image' of an arrow. The question is to how one can tell the difference between any possible directions the arrow would go if time were set free. For a modern example, given a picture of an arrow taken with a background of the sky, you cannot tell whether the next 'frame' will be moving left, right, up, nor down. This was the paradox. What could be at a single point in space that holds nothing yet 'knows' where it will go next?
So called, "zeno's paradoxes" do NOT address any such things.

The way zeno's "paradoxes" were written has just caused confusion within some human beings.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am The answer, in my opinion, is similar to the Quantum Mechanical thought experiment of a cat being both dead and alive: All possibilities exist but form different patterns to which create distinctly different 'stories', or "worlds". As such, then a world exists for absolutely every possibility.
If this is the 'answer", then what was the 'question'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am [Note that if absolutely everything exists, then so do 'impossibilities'.
But the word 'everything' does not necessarily have to reference absolutely EVERY 'thing'. The word 'everything' could just reference EVERY 'thing', which exists.

'Impossibilities' could not logically nor empirically exist.
Therefore, impossibilities can not and thus do not exist.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am What is impossible would be a relative fact about one specific universe.
By definition there could only ever be One (specific) Universe.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am The other possibilities exist but in discrete universes that are exclusive to each other. Thus this can be both 'true' and 'false' of Totality. ]
How do 'you' define the word 'universe' here?

What the Universe actually is, and how It actually works, is really quite simple and easy. You just have to KNOW how to define 'words', properly and correctly.

If there is some thing, then there is obviously not absolute no thing.
There is some thing.
Cause, and effect, is why some things and every thing exists.
Every thing exists because of some thing else - causality - and although an origin from absolute nothing is a logical and empirical impossibility a relative nothing is why something, or everything, mentally and physically exists.

A 'relative nothing' or, in other words, spaces of 'absolute nothing' are needed in order for ALL things to exist.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:53 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am To actually understand this requires introducing "absolute" and "relative" nothing.

Only an absolute state of nothing can suffice as an ORIGIN to everything because at that stage, it is BOTH nothing in meaning while also something true about Totality, as ONE fact, or a 'something'. Also, given an origin in absolute nothing, if true, all of everything we conceive as 'somethings' have to be derived from nothing. But how? ...

By the fact that in such a possible Totality being absolutely nothing, it has no means to require remaining nothing because something, namely a law that could possibly exist to prevent the state of nothing to change, is not able to care whether it is breaking some law or not.

Everything can be understood best by assuming absolutely everything, which is logically equivalent to no reality on the fundamental level. Reality is the 'manifestation' of abstract rules, just as the meaning of numbers are abstract.

By the way, the caveat here is IF there is an absolute 'origin'.

A relative nothing would be similar to the unending continuity of all points in space (or spaces). Take any physical thing you like and imagine dividing it up into smaller and smaller intervals that approach nothing. The question is whether you can reach this or not. IF not, then a quanta of some smallest unit would have to exist. But then how could it HAVE size at all other than 'nothing' by meaning?

Zeno's paradoxes addresses these issues and demonstrates the problems associated with understanding a meaning for 'zero' (probably a name derived from Zeno, or that he was labeled a 'zero' for being so confusing to many?) The best one relating to this concern is to the Arrow paradox. They didn't have photographs back then. But Zeno expressed imagining a frozen 'image' of an arrow. The question is to how one can tell the difference between any possible directions the arrow would go if time were set free. For a modern example, given a picture of an arrow taken with a background of the sky, you cannot tell whether the next 'frame' will be moving left, right, up, nor down. This was the paradox. What could be at a single point in space that holds nothing yet 'knows' where it will go next?

The answer, in my opinion, is similar to the Quantum Mechanical thought experiment of a cat being both dead and alive: All possibilities exist but form different patterns to which create distinctly different 'stories', or "worlds". As such, then a world exists for absolutely every possibility.

[Note that if absolutely everything exists, then so do 'impossibilities'. What is impossible would be a relative fact about one specific universe. The other possibilities exist but in discrete universes that are exclusive to each other. Thus this can be both 'true' and 'false' of Totality. ]
Much simpler version: there's no such thing as absolute nothing.
'Absolute nothing' exists, but only ever in imagination only.
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: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:53 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:14 am To actually understand this requires introducing "absolute" and "relative" nothing.

Only an absolute state of nothing can suffice as an ORIGIN to everything because at that stage, it is BOTH nothing in meaning while also something true about Totality, as ONE fact, or a 'something'. Also, given an origin in absolute nothing, if true, all of everything we conceive as 'somethings' have to be derived from nothing. But how? ...

By the fact that in such a possible Totality being absolutely nothing, it has no means to require remaining nothing because something, namely a law that could possibly exist to prevent the state of nothing to change, is not able to care whether it is breaking some law or not.

Everything can be understood best by assuming absolutely everything, which is logically equivalent to no reality on the fundamental level. Reality is the 'manifestation' of abstract rules, just as the meaning of numbers are abstract.

By the way, the caveat here is IF there is an absolute 'origin'.

A relative nothing would be similar to the unending continuity of all points in space (or spaces). Take any physical thing you like and imagine dividing it up into smaller and smaller intervals that approach nothing. The question is whether you can reach this or not. IF not, then a quanta of some smallest unit would have to exist. But then how could it HAVE size at all other than 'nothing' by meaning?

Zeno's paradoxes addresses these issues and demonstrates the problems associated with understanding a meaning for 'zero' (probably a name derived from Zeno, or that he was labeled a 'zero' for being so confusing to many?) The best one relating to this concern is to the Arrow paradox. They didn't have photographs back then. But Zeno expressed imagining a frozen 'image' of an arrow. The question is to how one can tell the difference between any possible directions the arrow would go if time were set free. For a modern example, given a picture of an arrow taken with a background of the sky, you cannot tell whether the next 'frame' will be moving left, right, up, nor down. This was the paradox. What could be at a single point in space that holds nothing yet 'knows' where it will go next?

The answer, in my opinion, is similar to the Quantum Mechanical thought experiment of a cat being both dead and alive: All possibilities exist but form different patterns to which create distinctly different 'stories', or "worlds". As such, then a world exists for absolutely every possibility.

[Note that if absolutely everything exists, then so do 'impossibilities'. What is impossible would be a relative fact about one specific universe. The other possibilities exist but in discrete universes that are exclusive to each other. Thus this can be both 'true' and 'false' of Totality. ]
Much simpler version: there's no such thing as absolute nothing.
'Absolute nothing' exists, but only ever in imagination only.
It cannot exist in the imagination directly. It has no content and is 'absolute'.
There IS an 'absolute nothing' though when you deduce it from what we know. It would be prior to time, space, and matter. We cannot point to it (as it points nowhere AND everywhere) but it still has real meaning and needed as a foundation to argue from. We have to postulate it, if you cannot mentally grasp it.

The alternative would require one to prove precisely 'how many' exact factors there exists in Totality, which leads to permanent INCOMPLETENESS. The caveate I mentioned about IF there is an origin, would be cancelled where "absolutely everything" exists in Totality.

Because we cannot rule out anything AND we can and do utilize the meaning of nothing (absolute or relative), absolutely everything has to be defaulted to (or at least postulated). This is about Totality, not simply our particular Universe alone. Ours is an ordered and patterned type of Universe. You cannot avoid the utility of understanding Nothing. It is the bedrock of set theory (as the "empty class/set"). You CAN prove powerful truths by undestanding this. But I don't trust you nor many others could grasp the concept without being able to think on a very extreme deep level and invest in the time ON YOUR OWN incentive.

It is not possible for me to convince you of anything without agreement as to postulates and the means to argue agreed upon. I doubt from talking with you before that I'd get anywhere and feel that I'd be wasting my time. Sorry. I already discovered a lot by understanding this topic and the paradoxes of Zeno have helped express the problems involved quite well.

[When the world is witnessing the likes of the present politics where no amount of direct logic is effective, I doubt if I had 'absolute' proof of anything, I wouldn't convince anyone without having the POWER of position and authority. And given I feel that would be a cheat, even if I magically had these tomorrow, I would be hesitant to try knowing that even if I could prove something, it would be exploited destructively by those I and others would not like.]
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=480057 time=1605448948 user_id=11118]
[quote=Age post_id=480010 time=1605410575 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=480004 time=1605398025 user_id=15238]


Much simpler version: there's no such thing as absolute nothing.
[/quote]

'Absolute nothing' exists, but only ever in imagination only.
[/quote]

It cannot exist in the imagination directly. It has no content and is 'absolute'.
There IS an 'absolute nothing' though when you deduce it from what we know. It would be prior to time, space, and matter. We cannot point to it (as it points nowhere AND everywhere) but it still has real meaning and needed as a foundation to argue from. We have to postulate it, if you cannot mentally grasp it.

The alternative would require one to prove precisely 'how many' exact factors there exists in Totality, which leads to permanent INCOMPLETENESS. The caveate I mentioned about IF there is an origin, would be cancelled where "absolutely everything" exists in Totality.

Because we cannot rule out anything AND we can and do utilize the meaning of nothing (absolute or relative), absolutely everything has to be defaulted to (or at least postulated). This is about Totality, not simply our particular Universe alone. Ours is an ordered and patterned type of Universe. You cannot avoid the utility of understanding Nothing. It is the bedrock of set theory (as the "empty class/set"). You CAN prove powerful truths by undestanding this. But I don't trust you nor many others could grasp the concept without being able to think on a very extreme deep level and invest in the time ON YOUR OWN incentive.

It is not possible for me to convince you of anything without agreement as to postulates and the means to argue agreed upon. I doubt from talking with you before that I'd get anywhere and feel that I'd be wasting my time. Sorry. I already discovered a lot by understanding this topic and the paradoxes of Zeno have helped express the problems involved quite well.

[When the world is witnessing the likes of the present politics where no amount of direct logic is effective, I doubt if I had 'absolute' proof of anything, I wouldn't convince [i]anyone [/i]without having the POWER of position and authority. And given I feel that would be a cheat, even if I magically had these tomorrow, I would be hesitant to try knowing that even if I could prove something, it would be exploited destructively by those I and others would not like.]
[/quote]

Things are sets of attributes and boundary conditions. A thing with no attributes would be nothing, butt also not a thing, so useless. "Lack of x" is a definitive set and cannot apply to a lack of attributes. Nothing doesn't mean anything but lack of something specific according to why you're talking about it.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by AlexW »

bahman wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm This also indicates that nothing to something is possible
Nothing to something is only possible when something to nothing is equally possible.
Remove one side of the mental equation and the thought up game ends.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Dontaskme »

AlexW wrote: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:16 am
bahman wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:16 pm This also indicates that nothing to something is possible
Nothing to something is only possible when something to nothing is equally possible.
Remove one side of the mental equation and the thought up game ends.
Excellent!
Post Reply