Nothing cannot cause anything

[Speakpigeon]

Vacuum state is different from nothing.

I agree with you bahman. a vacuum state is something, not nothing. and i agree with the notion that nothing cannot cause anything.

I agree with you and bahman. vacuum is something, not nothing. And i agree that nothing could not possibly cause anything.

i think the real question is... was there ever really nothing? is that what physicists say?

Nothing is nothing.
Also, it's logically possible nothing existed.
And yet now something exists.
Reality can't possibly have been caused but that doesn't disprove the possibility that nothing existed.
EB

[melancocky]

Vacuum state is different from nothing.

I agree with you bahman. a vacuum state is something, not nothing. and i agree with the notion that nothing cannot cause anything.

I agree with you and bahman. vacuum is something, not nothing. And i agree that nothing could not possibly cause anything.

i think the real question is... was there ever really nothing? is that what physicists say?

Nothing is nothing.
Also, it's logically possible nothing existed.
And yet now something exists.
Reality can't possibly have been caused but that doesn't disprove the possibility that nothing existed.
EB

your logic seems contradictory to me. let me put it this way...

you say it is "logically possible nothing existed." so let's say there was nothing... how could something now exist?

[Scott Mayers]

Assume that nothing can cause something. Nothing is however indifferent so one outcome is only one possibility among infinite possibilities. Only one possibility is improbable. Therefore only plausible scenario is when all possibilities are caused. Reality is however not indifferent. Therefore nothing cannot cause anything.

Although I've argued on this before I will be re-representing this later. I begun this as a question: "How many facts are there in Totality"

You have three extreme cases, all 'absolutes': If given ONE unique fact, it is not 'creative' as all it can assert is itself. If any other form of 'one' exists [every finite number is a UNIT], an infinite set of possibilities using all arrangements of its parts CAN be infinite, just as using only ten digits, you can create any infinite set of positive integers (or Natural numbers). So

Absolute Something Unique cannot exist.

This leaves us with either absolutely everything or absolutely nothing.
If absolutely everything, this includes either any finite number or nothing, relative and absolute.

The ONLY one that can directly be an Absolute 'origin', however, is Absolute Nothing. Being absolute means it is also without 'law' and so cannot break any law for doing so. Therefore while there is an infinity of possibilities (and infinities to the power of infinites, etc.) ONLY an absolute origin CAN cause everything. It being what totality is, it would be one at such an origin as well as zero.

Contraction is our 'force' of nature where we have such an origin. Our particular universe is just one, logically. Thus this proves both logically and empirically true. You only need to experience at least one fact to follow this logic and the observation of the functional closure and completeness of the first order logics.


What do you mean by "indifferent"?

[bahman]

Assume that nothing can cause something. Nothing is however indifferent so one outcome is only one possibility among infinite possibilities. Only one possibility is improbable. Therefore only plausible scenario is when all possibilities are caused. Reality is however not indifferent. Therefore nothing cannot cause anything.

Although I've argued on this before I will be re-representing this later. I begun this as a question: "How many facts are there in Totality"

You have three extreme cases, all 'absolutes': If given ONE unique fact, it is not 'creative' as all it can assert is itself. If any other form of 'one' exists [every finite number is a UNIT], an infinite set of possibilities using all arrangements of its parts CAN be infinite, just as using only ten digits, you can create any infinite set of positive integers (or Natural numbers). So

Absolute Something Unique cannot exist.

This leaves us with either absolutely everything or absolutely nothing.
If absolutely everything, this includes either any finite number or nothing, relative and absolute.

The ONLY one that can directly be an Absolute 'origin', however, is Absolute Nothing. Being absolute means it is also without 'law' and so cannot break any law for doing so. Therefore while there is an infinity of possibilities (and infinities to the power of infinites, etc.) ONLY an absolute origin CAN cause everything. It being what totality is, it would be one at such an origin as well as zero.

Contraction is our 'force' of nature where we have such an origin. Our particular universe is just one, logically. Thus this proves both logically and empirically true. You only need to experience at least one fact to follow this logic and the observation of the functional closure and completeness of the first order logics.


What do you mean by "indifferent"?

Having no preference.

[Scott Mayers]

Having no preference.

Okay. I see. But as per what I wrote above, given an "absolute" nothingness, it has not even a mind to 'care' to be discriminate against becoming itself 'false'. That is, if Totality == Absolutely Nothing, that very 'truth' is one more greater than nothing itself. But the opposite isn't true if Totality == Absolutely Something, because this identity is non-constructive especially without a mind to construct.

You reasoned correctly THAT a nothing is itself a something still but borrowed FROM the post-state of being a something to justify why nothing cannot 'cause' anything either. IF no essential mind where a something exists as a 'law' is true, then while it may be 'true' that nothing also doesn't have a mind, it has an infinite set of possible content to 'create' (cause) from.

I think our universes are like completed puzzles (as an analogy) or a like a single 'frame' on a monitor screen (etc) such that the elemental pieces are themselves able to factually have an infinite distinct arrangements and patterns. The patterned 'worlds' (like the completed puzzles) form world images that mostly do not form any sensible patterns. Ours is one that does and our perception of it as having 'laws' themselves are not actual 'laws' but one of the infinite set of 'images' of any number of elemental possibilities (even as mere 'pointers' to things that are 'empty' of meaning) such that they have fixed patterns that link up to make stories possible, like the multiple set of images that define a movie, for instance.

[Speakpigeon]

Nothing is nothing.
Also, it's logically possible nothing existed.
And yet now something exists.
Reality can't possibly have been caused but that doesn't disprove the possibility that nothing existed.

your logic seems contradictory to me. let me put it this way...
you say it is "logically possible nothing existed." so let's say there was nothing... how could something now exist?

I certainly don't see why something could not now exist just because there was nothing.But if you think your logic is good then you should have no problem pointing out the contradiction. Me, I accept something exists. Well, me, at least. Now, try to explain to me why it is logically impossible that nothing existed or that if nothing existed, it would be impossible for something to now exist.
EB

[melancocky]

Nothing is nothing.
Also, it's logically possible nothing existed.
And yet now something exists.
Reality can't possibly have been caused but that doesn't disprove the possibility that nothing existed.

your logic seems contradictory to me. let me put it this way...
you say it is "logically possible nothing existed." so let's say there was nothing... how could something now exist?

I certainly don't see why something could not now exist just because there was nothing.But if you think your logic is good then you should have no problem pointing out the contradiction. Me, I accept something exists. Well, me, at least. Now, try to explain to me why it is logically impossible that nothing existed or that if nothing existed, it would be impossible for something to now exist.
EB

You say "i don't see why something could not now exist just because there was nothing." I beg to differ. If there was nothing, then it is impossible for something to begin to exist. do you agree or disagree?

[Speakpigeon]

your logic seems contradictory to me. let me put it this way...
you say it is "logically possible nothing existed." so let's say there was nothing... how could something now exist?

I certainly don't see why something could not now exist just because there was nothing.But if you think your logic is good then you should have no problem pointing out the contradiction. Me, I accept something exists. Well, me, at least. Now, try to explain to me why it is logically impossible that nothing existed or that if nothing existed, it would be impossible for something to now exist.

You say "i don't see why something could not now exist just because there was nothing." I beg to differ. If there was nothing, then it is impossible for something to begin to exist. do you agree or disagree?

I say I don't see why it would be logically impossible. What would it make it impossible if there's nothing?
Assume there's no reality. What could possibly make it logically impossible for reality to now exist?
In other words, what do you know about the existence of reality that would make it impossible for reality to now exist if there was nothing.
EB