Nothing to something must be possible

[iambiguous]

Note...

There was a thread started at ILP that explored these questions: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194274

And some of the posts contain actual substantive arguments!!!

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Posted by EarthSky Voices
Lloyd Strickland
Originally published November 11, 2016, in The Conversation

Many earlier thinkers had asked why our universe is the way it is, but Leibniz went a step further, wondering why there is a universe at all. The question is a challenging one because it seems perfectly possible that there might have been nothing whatsoever – no Earth, no stars, no galaxies, no universe. Leibniz even thought that nothing would have been “simpler and easier.” If nothing whatsoever had existed then no explanation would have been needed, not that there would have been anyone around to ask for an explanation, of course, but that’s a different matter.

Oh, indeed, a very different matter. Really, try to imagine nothing existing at all. Or try to imagine something always existing. Either way you are left only with "intellectual" or "philosophical" or "metaphysical" assessments.

Leibniz thought that the fact that there is something and not nothing requires an explanation. The explanation he gave was that God wanted to create a universe – the best one possible – which makes God the simple reason that there is something rather than nothing.

And the part where God came into existence out of nothing at all...or always existed?

Of course: a leap of faith!

In the years since Leibniz’s death, his great question has continued to exercise philosophers and scientists, though in an increasingly secular age it is not surprising that many have been wary of invoking God as the answer to it.

On the other hand, that hasn't stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are...God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.

Logically for example.

[Dontaskme]

Now we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible. We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.

First of all, I agree with the premise of this topics idea.

My two penny's worth....Nothing to something is possible within the duality of knowledge.

Knowledge implies a knower, therefore, there must be a duality that is knower and known...to be aware of something is a duality. . Something could never be known to be without something that is not something to know it.

I know I am going to die, I know I was born is a knowledge implying a beginning and an ending, but only as a concept known, and never as an actual physical experience. No baby who is born was actually present to witness their own birth, that birth can only be witnessed in a duality where there is twoness....where there is an awareness of something ...which is the known concept of birth.

The act of creation is impossible because there is nothing to create something, knowledge is something that is a concept which is also known to be as empty as space itself, so in reality creation is not happening, it's an illusion, because there is nothing to make anything with.

.

[bahman]

I IMAGINE that the BigBang so far seems to save the appearances as we know them, but all cosmologies heretofore accepted have become redundant, so that a collection of different paradigms sweep aside old ideas from Aristarchus to Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hoyle etc.. I have no specific reason to be assured that the BB is going to last forever.
It might be that the Universe has been continually expanding, contracting then exploding . Whose knows if the BB expanded into something there that was washed away?

First, we are not talking about the future. Second, there are three models for the universe, cyclic, eternal, and a universe with a beginning. Cyclic and eternal universes could not be the case since they lead to regress. So we are left by a universe that has a beginning. QED.

What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?

Each cycle is finite but there are unlimited numbers of them.

[bahman]

To who?

And WHY do you NOT ANSWER my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you?

What does infinity mean to you?

Limitless or endless in size or spatially.

To me, time has either a beginning, which means the time duration between the beginning of time and now is finite, or it does not have any beginning, which means the time duration between any point in the infinite past and now is infinite.

Is an endless or limitless thing reachable?

[bahman]

FFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.

That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.

No. You have not used any logic.


By definition no.
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

So one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?

One 'what', EXACTLY?

One, Universe, CAN and HAS so-called 'REACHED' from the eternal past to the NOW. (But this is just because it is the NOW, which is eternal anyway).

One, human being, for example, however, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT reach from the eternal past to now. But this is just SO OBVIOUS it would NOT be necessary to even mention it.

We are not talking about humans and whether they can reach infinity. Infinity opposite to finite is unreachable. You don't need an observer to see the evolution of the universe. You need to think about the process of evolution of the universe.

[Dontaskme]

What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?

Each cycle is finite but there are unlimited numbers of them.

That's the duality of a nondual universe.

Atto is right, and so are you.

[bahman]

Fair enough.

Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.

Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.

After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.

Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.

As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?

It could not always be something. That is regress.

There you go again, merely believing this "in your head"..."logically". Much like those on the other side who believe in their heads logically that there was never not something.

I'll stay tuned for the documentary on NOVA that finally settles it. And, with any luck, in our lifetime!!

I have the right to think that my argument is right unless someone shows a flaw in it.

And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?

That is the world of logic.

Oh, indeed. A world of words. Words defining and defending other words. Metaphysically as it were.

Does the world of words have any value to you? If not why do you bother with philosophy at all?

[CHNOPS]

First, we are not talking about the future. Second, there are three models for the universe, cyclic, eternal, and a universe with a beginning. Cyclic and eternal universes could not be the case since they lead to regress. So we are left by a universe that has a beginning. QED.

What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?

Each cycle is finite but there are unlimited numbers of them.

There are unlimited cycles, but we cant say that.

If the universe start from nothing, then, where is the "counter" that says "one, two, three, four...." ? There isnt one.

You know the arrow of the hours on the clock have turned one cycle (1 hour) because you compare that arrow with other, the minute one.

If you only have one arrow... how do you know how many times is the arrow turned around?


You cant know it. And is not that there is a limit of knowledge, it just that it not a new cycle....


"unlimited numbers of cycles where each of them are the first cycle..."

Is a contradiction, but that is what happens.

[bobmax]

The act of creation is impossible because there is nothing to create something, knowledge is something that is a concept which is also known to be as empty as space itself, so in reality creation is not happening, it's an illusion, because there is nothing to make anything with.

But non-duality is above all an ethical necessity.

If reality were truly dual, hell would be equally real and inevitable for everyone.

Instead, hell is only tasted, as a possibility of eternal damnation.
Perhaps this being lost forever to evil is necessary to return home.

[bahman]

Note...

There was a thread started at ILP that explored these questions: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194274

And some of the posts contain actual substantive arguments!!!

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Posted by EarthSky Voices
Lloyd Strickland
Originally published November 11, 2016, in The Conversation

Many earlier thinkers had asked why our universe is the way it is, but Leibniz went a step further, wondering why there is a universe at all. The question is a challenging one because it seems perfectly possible that there might have been nothing whatsoever – no Earth, no stars, no galaxies, no universe. Leibniz even thought that nothing would have been “simpler and easier.” If nothing whatsoever had existed then no explanation would have been needed, not that there would have been anyone around to ask for an explanation, of course, but that’s a different matter.

Oh, indeed, a very different matter. Really, try to imagine nothing existing at all. Or try to imagine something always existing. Either way you are left only with "intellectual" or "philosophical" or "metaphysical" assessments.

Leibniz thought that the fact that there is something and not nothing requires an explanation. The explanation he gave was that God wanted to create a universe – the best one possible – which makes God the simple reason that there is something rather than nothing.

And the part where God came into existence out of nothing at all...or always existed?

Of course: a leap of faith!

In the years since Leibniz’s death, his great question has continued to exercise philosophers and scientists, though in an increasingly secular age it is not surprising that many have been wary of invoking God as the answer to it.

On the other hand, that hasn't stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are...God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.

Logically for example.

If one shows that nothing to something must be possible and there was a beginning then the question of why there is something instead of nothing has no relevance.

[Dontaskme]

The act of creation is impossible because there is nothing to create something, knowledge is something that is a concept which is also known to be as empty as space itself, so in reality creation is not happening, it's an illusion, because there is nothing to make anything with.

But non-duality is above all an ethical necessity.

If reality were truly dual, hell would be equally real and inevitable for everyone.

Instead, hell is only tasted, as a possibility of eternal damnation.
Perhaps this being lost forever to evil is necessary to return home.

Dont forget, these concepts known as hell or heaven are the duality of knowledge. Conceptual Knowledge is only pointing to the illusory dream of separation which appears, as apparently real.

[bahman]

Now we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible. We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.

First of all, I agree with the premise of this topics idea.

Cool.

My two penny's worth....Nothing to something is possible within the duality of knowledge.

Knowledge implies a knower, therefore, there must be a duality that is knower and known...to be aware of something is a duality. . Something could never be known to be without something that is not something to know it.

I agree.

I know I am going to die, I know I was born is a knowledge implying a beginning and an ending, but only as a concept known, and never as an actual physical experience. No baby who is born was actually present to witness their own birth, that birth can only be witnessed in a duality where there is twoness....where there is an awareness of something ...which is the known concept of birth.

I agree.

The act of creation is impossible because there is nothing to create something, knowledge is something that is a concept which is also known to be as empty as space itself, so in reality creation is not happening, it's an illusion, because there is nothing to make anything with.

What if one claims that there was a knower, so-called God, in the beginning?

[bahman]

What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?

Each cycle is finite but there are unlimited numbers of them.

There are unlimited cycles, but we cant say that.

Why not? If the number of cycles is not unlimited then there is a beginning cycle, so there is a beginning which is the beginning of the first cycle.

If the universe start from nothing, then, where is the "counter" that says "one, two, three, four...." ? There isnt one.

You know the arrow of the hours on the clock have turned one cycle (1 hour) because you compare that arrow with other, the minute one.

If you only have one arrow... how do you know how many times is the arrow turned around?


You cant know it. And is not that there is a limit of knowledge, it just that it not a new cycle....


"unlimited numbers of cycles where each of them are the first cycle..."

Is a contradiction, but that is what happens.

I cannot follow one word of you here. Could you please elaborate?

[bobmax]

Dont forget, these concepts known as hell or heaven are the duality of knowledge. Conceptual Knowledge is only pointing to the illusory dream of separation which appears, as apparently real.

Hell and heaven belong to duality.

However, they are not concepts but real places, available here and now.
They are places of the soul.

The "truth" of hell surpasses any other possible truth accessible in duality.
Hell is in fact the possible breaking point of the dream of duality.

But if you indulge in Nihilism you don't go to hell.
And so one remains imprisoned in duality

[Dontaskme]

What if one claims that there was a knower, so-called God, in the beginning?

A God would be an object of knowing..the object would first have to exist for it to be possible to be known....so again, the object of knowing can only exist as a concept known within the dream of separation, the realm that is the duality of mental constructions...aka concepts.

In reality, conceptual projections are illusory images aka (somethings) of the imageless (nothing) which is the same one reality, appearing as a duality within knowledge.

Illusory doesn't mean somethings do not exist, it just means they are not what they appear to be.