Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

[Scott Mayers]

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.

Prove that you cannot die.

He is expressing that if it is possible (a conditional) that something CAN become nothing, such as person who dies and is no longer who they were, then why can it not also be rational to presume the opposite, that we can be born? Obviously this would be 'relative nothing' given it is not unique. But it at least assures that it is POSSIBLE for demonstrating this fact. Note "possible" means, "able to pose". If even ONE reality has all the qualificating properties of what we are questioning to exist, then we've proven that is possible for posing it as witnessed.

Of course you may then argue that we cannot know whether we were born nor die, given we'd require some existence on either side of these to prove to ourselves that we were not alive prior nor after these endpoints to determine this. Then this just leaves us unable to determine whether this is true or not. That is, you cannot decree that it is NOT the case that there is NOT a state of (relatively) nothing.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

I have a definitive proof THAT the state of 'nothing' itself is the only 'thing' that we can deduce reality to on an elementary scale. I needed this as a precursor for my Physics theory with closure. If you want an outline of how I do this, I'll want to open a separate thread on it to conserve the ability to index this as MY argument in places like Google searches. [It optimizes a search by looking at the title and the one who opens the thread with priority.]



[Don't bother requoting our whole quote if you insist on plain texting with me. The function of it is only to aid in demonstrating how to quote and nothing more that can't already be done by the 'code' button above (or are you aware of this?). It is hard to parse what you say without running it through another program to do so or it is too hard to bother reading. I'm still confused at why you are doing this given if it lacks security concerns (from my prior challenge to you) nor has any ease on your part, what other purpose does it serve? We also don't get an email notice of someone responding to us while you still have the privilege to receive our comments to your posts. I often skip over those reminders that don't indicate someone 'quoting' me in my email because I'd end up getting my inbox filled with the whole thread where I have to keep opening every last response. Thank you if you chose to comply. ]

[Dontaskme]

Prove that you cannot die.

To know concepts like die/death/dead....one has to be born.

Prove that you cannot be born.

[Scott Mayers]

Prove that you cannot die.

To know concepts like die/death/dead....one has to be born.

Prove that you cannot be born.

That's included. I just picked the side after life because at least we are at least considering this given you need to be alive to argue.

[Dontaskme]

Prove that you cannot die.

To know concepts like die/death/dead....one has to be born.

Prove that you cannot be born.

That's included. I just picked the side after life because at least we are at least considering this given you need to be alive to argue.

How can one argue..who would one argue with if there is nothing known of the other side. How can one have a one sided argument?

[Scott Mayers]

To know concepts like die/death/dead....one has to be born.

Prove that you cannot be born.

That's included. I just picked the side after life because at least we are at least considering this given you need to be alive to argue.

How can one argue..who would one argue with if there is nothing known of the other side. How can one have a one sided argument?

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.

[Dontaskme]

That is, you 'extend' your deduced experience of others being born and die to your own life.

But the witnessing of others being born is not a first hand witness account of your own birth.
What is seen is only reflection of the seer. Not the seer.

Prove you cannot be born.

[AlexW]

Prove that you cannot die.

He is expressing that if it is possible (a conditional) that something CAN become nothing, such as person who dies and is no longer who they were, then why can it not also be rational to presume the opposite, that we can be born?

I guess there are multiple ways of answering your question - all dependent on what it is that is meant to be born and die...

1) If we look at birth in the conventional way - as the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring - then it is a physical process where a new body seems to (apparently) come from "nothing". But, as we all know, this is not actually so. A new body doesn't come from nothing, it grows inside the mother's body, it is "made from" the mothers body. So... where does the mother's body come from? The simple answer is: from the food the mother is consuming. So... where does the food come from? I guess its pretty clear by now that this chain may be followed back further and further until... until we end up at a point where theoretical (some call it: scientific) ideas postulates that a magical "big bang" happened creating something out of nothing...
Does this prove that nothing can become something? Not really... its just an idea, a way of attempting to limit "nothing" (infinity) and turn it into "something" (the limited).

2) If we look at birth as the birth of the separate self, the idea/knowledge of I, then we are dealing with a purely thought based process of birth and death, existence and non existence. Its about the difference between the ideas of nothing (or better: no thing) and something (better: some thing). While these ideas seem to be not identical at all, they are, in truth, uniovular twins. They only exist together, remove one of the twins and the other one will die as well. Its like left and right, up or down, thing and no thing...
If you wander through a maze where every corner is always a left turn, you might as well say that you are going straight ahead - then again... you turn around by 180deg and suddenly every turn will be a right turn... has left suddenly turned into right? Do both exist? Or none? It depends on how you look at it (how you interpret it)... but in reality you simply walk "straight" ahead (no matter if you label it left or right).
Its the same with "some thing" and "no thing" - we believe we always see and experience "things", and, at the same time, we believe that we cannot experience "no thing" - meaning: we believe we can only go left - but... in reality you can go neither left nor right, you can only walk straight ahead (one neither experiences things nor does one experience no things).

[Advocate]

[quote=AlexW post_id=480233 time=1605567026 user_id=15862]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=480160 time=1605527801 user_id=11118]
Prove that you cannot die.

He is expressing that if it is possible (a conditional) that something CAN become nothing, such as person who dies and is no longer who they were, then why can it not also be rational to presume the opposite, that we can be born?
[/quote]
I guess there are multiple ways of answering your question - all dependent on what it is that is meant to be born and die...

1) If we look at birth in the conventional way - as the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring - then it is a physical process where a new body seems to (apparently) come from "nothing". But, as we all know, this is not actually so. A new body doesn't come from nothing, it grows inside the mother's body, it is "made from" the mothers body. So... where does the mother's body come from? The simple answer is: from the food the mother is consuming. So... where does the food come from? I guess its pretty clear by now that this chain may be followed back further and further until... until we end up at a point where theoretical (some call it: scientific) ideas postulates that a magical "big bang" happened creating something out of nothing...
Does this prove that nothing can become something? Not really... its just an idea, a way of attempting to limit "nothing" (infinity) and turn it into "something" (the limited).

2) If we look at birth as the birth of the separate self, the idea/knowledge of I, then we are dealing with a purely thought based process of birth and death, existence and non existence. Its about the difference between the ideas of nothing (or better: no thing) and something (better: some thing). While these ideas seem to be not identical at all, they are, in truth, uniovular twins. They only exist together, remove one of the twins and the other one will die as well. Its like left and right, up or down, thing and no thing...
If you wander through a maze where every corner is always a left turn, you might as well say that you are going straight ahead - then again... you turn around by 180deg and suddenly every turn will be a right turn... has left suddenly turned into right? Do both exist? Or none? It depends on how you look at it (how you interpret it)... but in reality you simply walk "straight" ahead (no matter if you label it left or right).
Its the same with "some thing" and "no thing" - we believe we always see and experience "things", and, at the same time, we believe that we cannot experience "no thing" - meaning: we believe we can only go left - but... in reality you can go neither left nor right, you can only walk straight ahead (one neither experiences things nor does one experience no things).
[/quote]

You don't come from nothing when you're born and you don't turn into nothing when you die. The pattern changes, that is all. All the same stuff, including energy, still exists, only in different form. Only patterns can begin or end and only then in relation to the purposes we use them for.

[AlexW]

You don't come from nothing when you're born and you don't turn into nothing when you die. The pattern changes, that is all. All the same stuff, including energy, still exists, only in different form. Only patterns can begin or end and only then in relation to the purposes we use them for.

Sure, its only an ever changing pattern - some of it is called "I/you" and other patterns are labelled "he/she"...
But there is no owner, no external creator of the pattern (at least none that could be known) - there is simply the pattern and it seems to be (attempting) to know/explain itself

[bahman]

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.

[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.

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. PoC however does not apply to nothing 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.

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.

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.

There are also to many other numerous flaws and faults that l did not even mention in your thinking here.

What are them?

[bahman]

This also indicates that nothing to something is possible

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. To elaborate think of a change, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist since you cannot have change. 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 order in the a universe however requires a mind.

[Advocate]

[quote=bahman post_id=480255 time=1605604222 user_id=12593]
Nothing is absence of any thing which make complete sence.
[/quote]

Every thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions. No-thing isn't even potentially a useful concept except in regard to the lack of a specific set of things according to purpose.

[Scott Mayers]

While these ideas seem to be not identical at all, they are, in truth, uniovular twins. They only exist together, remove one of the twins and the other one will die as well.

Where do people get these faulty beliefs? I happen to be one of those 'uniovular' twins [ie, 'identical'] and of a family of a few of them. One of my older twin sisters died. The other is still alive.