NOTHING, AND WHY THE QUESTION "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO NOTHING?" IS UNANSWERABLE

[roydop]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?" is unanswerable because "nothing" (as currently defined/thought of) does not exist in reality (it exists only as [an incorrect] thought/idea). If the question itself is in error (based upon an incorrect model of reality), all subsequent answers will produce inaccurate models of reality (they will not satisfy the query). A more accurate model of reality will produce a more satisfactory answer. If consciousness comes to accept a model that satisfies the "Why", that model must be more accurate than one where the "Why" is not satisfied.

Basically, the reality that is being framed by the question is in error. The conceptualization of "nothing" as a lack or an absence (of a thing) is in error.

It is logically impossible for a phenomena's existence to be dependent upon an absence of something else. If X exists only in the absence of Y, then X requires Y to exist prior to it's own existence, and yet paradoxically can only exist in Y's absence. So X requires Y to exist, and be absent. X's existence is completely dependent upon Y (X is the absence of Y) whereas Y's existence is not dependent upon X.

If we put all of physicality into a set (the universe) and assign it the thing (Y) to which nothing (X) is compared, we run into problems. If nothing is the absence of something, then prior to the Big Bang nothing should exist. However, the current model requires the thing to exist prior to the nothing. In order for something to be absent it first must be. One can say that the world is absent of unicorns without being wrong, and still be in error. In the same way, the current ingrained conceptualization of nothing is logically consistent and yet incomplete/in error.

Our model of reality, upon acute investigation, doesn't work, in much the same way that particle/classical physics doesn't work, but it's close enough for it to be accepted. This is how Maya works. It's far easier to lead consciousness deeper into the game if it no longer questions the status quo.

"Nothing" as a lack, or a void, or of non-existence, does not exist in Reality.

[upsurgent]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?" is unanswerable because "nothing" (as currently defined/thought of) does not exist in reality (it exists only as [an incorrect] thought/idea). If the question itself is in error (based upon an incorrect model of reality), all subsequent answers will produce inaccurate models of reality (they will not satisfy the query). A more accurate model of reality will produce a more satisfactory answer. If consciousness comes to accept a model that satisfies the "Why", that model must be more accurate than one where the "Why" is not satisfied.

Basically, the reality that is being framed by the question is in error. The conceptualization of "nothing" as a lack or an absence (of a thing) is in error.

It is logically impossible for a phenomena's existence to be dependent upon an absence of something else. If X exists only in the absence of Y, then X requires Y to exist prior to it's own existence, and yet paradoxically can only exist in Y's absence. So X requires Y to exist, and be absent. X's existence is completely dependent upon Y (X is the absence of Y) whereas Y's existence is not dependent upon X.

If we put all of physicality into a set (the universe) and assign it the thing (Y) to which nothing (X) is compared, we run into problems. If nothing is the absence of something, then prior to the Big Bang nothing should exist. However, the current model requires the thing to exist prior to the nothing. In order for something to be absent it first must be. One can say that the world is absent of unicorns without being wrong, and still be in error. In the same way, the current ingrained conceptualization of nothing is logically consistent and yet incomplete/in error.

Our model of reality, upon acute investigation, doesn't work, in much the same way that particle/classical physics doesn't work, but it's close enough for it to be accepted. This is how Maya works. It's far easier to lead consciousness deeper into the game if it no longer questions the status quo.

"Nothing" as a lack, or a void, or of non-existence, does not exist in Reality.

roydop;
One must continually be careful never to ever even mistakenly ascribe any sort of being to nothingness. Nothing is not. And, nothing upsurges via the negation of concrete being-in-itself; and, within the particular form of flux which is the origination of a human act.
Duane

[Eodnhoj7]

Void voids itself, there is only being.

[Skepdick]

In computer science it's called a Null-pointer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer ).
Trying to de-reference (read: use! (as opposed to mention)) null-pointer results in a memory error known as null-pointer exception ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_poin ... eferencing ).

The same thing happens in human brains - nonsense follows.

Performing boolean operations on "Null" does some strange things to logic also.

None (a.k.a Null) is not the same thing as False, but the negation of None is True. Like the negation of False.

https://repl.it/repls/FrontPlasticSdk

[roydop]

...there is only being.

Exactly. You cannot not exist.

Nihilism is wrong. Atheists are wrong, for they themselves are God. Just not the God that people think.

Knowing one cannot not exist, where is fear of death?

[Age]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?" is unanswerable because "nothing" (as currently defined/thought of) does not exist in reality (it exists only as [an incorrect] thought/idea). If the question itself is in error (based upon an incorrect model of reality), all subsequent answers will produce inaccurate models of reality (they will not satisfy the query). A more accurate model of reality will produce a more satisfactory answer. If consciousness comes to accept a model that satisfies the "Why", that model must be more accurate than one where the "Why" is not satisfied.

Basically, the reality that is being framed by the question is in error. The conceptualization of "nothing" as a lack or an absence (of a thing) is in error.

It is logically impossible for a phenomena's existence to be dependent upon an absence of something else. If X exists only in the absence of Y, then X requires Y to exist prior to it's own existence, and yet paradoxically can only exist in Y's absence. So X requires Y to exist, and be absent. X's existence is completely dependent upon Y (X is the absence of Y) whereas Y's existence is not dependent upon X.

If we put all of physicality into a set (the universe) and assign it the thing (Y) to which nothing (X) is compared, we run into problems. If nothing is the absence of something, then prior to the Big Bang nothing should exist. However, the current model requires the thing to exist prior to the nothing. In order for something to be absent it first must be. One can say that the world is absent of unicorns without being wrong, and still be in error. In the same way, the current ingrained conceptualization of nothing is logically consistent and yet incomplete/in error.

Our model of reality, upon acute investigation, doesn't work, in much the same way that particle/classical physics doesn't work, but it's close enough for it to be accepted. This is how Maya works. It's far easier to lead consciousness deeper into the game if it no longer questions the status quo.

"Nothing" as a lack, or a void, or of non-existence, does not exist in Reality.

'WHY there is something rather than nothing?' is very answerable.

[nothing]

It is answerable:
people do it every day
(even for a living).

Take the root of A as *A.
*A = +A and -A
*+A = (a) and is real
*-A = (i) and is imaginary

The root of a negative number is imaginary, thus is not real. However,
it yet definitely has a gravity (ie. metric) related
to any/all belief-based ignorance(s) (ie. suffering/death)
which manifest by way of imagining/creating "something out of nothing".
Any/all energy expended (ie. acted on) due to such a conflation of (i) for/as (a) is what "plays out" in/over time.

Therefor +A and -A can represent any/all belief-based ignorance(s) and any/all knowledge-negating-belief (resp).
If one begins as +A (ie. some degree of ignorance) and approaches -A indefinitely, one is effectively turning (i) (falsity) into (a) (truth) and approaching all-knowing indefinitely.

This is a technical way of explaining the truth-of-the-way-of-the-living.

[roydop]

It is answerable:
people do it every day
(even for a living).

Take the root of A as *A.
*A = +A and -A
*+A = (a) and is real
*-A = (i) and is imaginary

The root of a negative number is imaginary, thus is not real. However,
it yet definitely has a gravity (ie. metric) related
to any/all belief-based ignorance(s) (ie. suffering/death)
which manifest by way of imagining/creating "something out of nothing".
Any/all energy expended (ie. acted on) due to such a conflation of (i) for/as (a) is what "plays out" in/over time.

Therefor +A and -A can represent any/all belief-based ignorance(s) and any/all knowledge-negating-belief (resp).
If one begins as +A (ie. some degree of ignorance) and approaches -A indefinitely, one is effectively turning (i) (falsity) into (a) (truth) and approaching all-knowing indefinitely.

This is a technical way of explaining the truth-of-the-way-of-the-living.

Except that even the +A is imaginary. This sets up a "turtles all the way" infinite regressing ponzi scheme.

[Skepdick]

The answer is trivial. The question assumes a two-valued logic. Epistemology is tri-valued, not boolean. This is a semantic error.

https://repl.it/repls/TediousDevotedSweepsoftware

Code: Select all

from universe import *

# ¬A ⇔ ¬B => True
print( (not A) == (not B))

# ¬¬A ⇔ ¬¬B => True
print( (not not A) == (not not B))

# A ⇔ B => False
# This result is unexpected/surprising - something new was learned
print(A == B)

[nothing]

Except that even the +A is imaginary. This sets up a "turtles all the way" infinite regressing ponzi scheme.

That +A is imaginary is the whole point:

+A = believing/imaging (+) something that is not true (-)
-A = knowing +A is not true, thus no longer "imagining" / acting / suffering it is

If: A+ -> -A indefinitely
belief-based ignorance(s) -> all-knowing
satan -> god
etc.
as any/all belief-based ignorance(s)
relating to the confusion of
so-called good/evil exist in, and/or by way of,
belief-in-and-of-itself.

a -> b
a = belief-in-and-of-itself
b = any/all belief-based ignorance(s)

Thus:

The answer is trivial. The question assumes a two-valued logic. Epistemology is tri-valued, not boolean. This is a semantic error.

https://repl.it/repls/TediousDevotedSweepsoftware

Code: Select all

from universe import *

# ¬A ⇔ ¬B => True
print( (not A) == (not B))

# ¬¬A ⇔ ¬¬B => True
print( (not not A) == (not not B))

# A ⇔ B => False
# This result is unexpected/surprising - something new was learned
print(A == B)

there is alternative 'state' to either A or B: neither one nor the other (ie. "both").

A believes B is evil
B believes A is evil
C knows both A and B are ignorant.

[Immanuel Can]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?"

Well, we can't put undue stress on metaphorical language. If one does that, it becomes very easy to think one has a snappy rejoinder when one has simply failed to grasp the import of the question. So let's think carefully about what that question implies.

If all things were a homogenous soup of energy, no (particular) things would exist. No thing would be distinct from any other thing, or from the "soup" in which all were found. So the term "exists" could not be posited of anything. No-thing would exist. That's accurate, and accurate on both ends of that predication.

In fact, this is the very thing we ought to have expected to be the case, given mathematics and randomness. Moreover, given that the "other ways" things could have been are so multitudinous (see the Fine Tuning Argument) why did it turn out that things are as they are? It looks like there are some constraints (or laws) that govern the state of affairs in which we find ourselves: but why would we expect anything as orderly as a "law" to emerge out of an infinite "soup" of random energy, let alone anything so organized as a single "thing" of any kind...a rock, a planet, a galaxy or a person?

There is no reason we know of why the universe should have "decided" to organize itself spontaneously into "things" of any kind. And yet, here we are. The question, then, is "How did that come about?" Or "How do we explain that it did?"

That's what the question is really all about. It's not about whether "nothing" exists.

[jayjacobus]

"Nothing" as a lack, or a void, or of non-existence, does not exist in Reality.

If you take away space, you are left with space. This may mean that nothing is not possible. There is nothing less than space.

Take away matter and energy and space is left.

If space always existed but not matter and energy, how did matter and energy emerge from space?

[roydop]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?"

Well, we can't put undue stress on metaphorical language. If one does that, it becomes very easy to think one has a snappy rejoinder when one has simply failed to grasp the import of the question. So let's think carefully about what that question implies.

If all things were a homogenous soup of energy, no (particular) things would exist. No thing would be distinct from any other thing, or from the "soup" in which all were found. So the term "exists" could not be posited of anything. No-thing would exist. That's accurate, and accurate on both ends of that predication.

In fact, this is the very thing we ought to have expected to be the case, given mathematics and randomness. Moreover, given that the "other ways" things could have been are so multitudinous (see the Fine Tuning Argument) why did it turn out that things are as they are? It looks like there are some constraints (or laws) that govern the state of affairs in which we find ourselves: but why would we expect anything as orderly as a "law" to emerge out of an infinite "soup" of random energy, let alone anything so organized as a single "thing" of any kind...a rock, a planet, a galaxy or a person?

There is no reason we know of why the universe should have "decided" to organize itself spontaneously into "things" of any kind. And yet, here we are. The question, then, is "How did that come about?" Or "How do we explain that it did?"

That's what the question is really all about. It's not about whether "nothing" exists.

Philosophy is about discovering the "why" of phenomena. The who what when how is for science.

I have come to the conclusion that this realm is much like a video game, with the goal of: ESCAPING THE GAME.

The mind creates the labyrinth, but the ego thinks it's actually leading consciousness out. I know this because i am able to "step outside" of thought and experience the state free of thought.

[roydop]

"Nothing" as a lack, or a void, or of non-existence, does not exist in Reality.

If you take away space, you are left with space. This may mean that nothing is not possible. There is nothing less than space.

Take away matter and energy and space is left.

If space always existed but not matter and energy, how did matter and energy emerge from space?

One can never take away Self. Self (not the ego of what you think you are) is the ground of being from which thought and sensations (the world) arises.

[Immanuel Can]

The question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?"

Well, we can't put undue stress on metaphorical language. If one does that, it becomes very easy to think one has a snappy rejoinder when one has simply failed to grasp the import of the question. So let's think carefully about what that question implies.

If all things were a homogenous soup of energy, no (particular) things would exist. No thing would be distinct from any other thing, or from the "soup" in which all were found. So the term "exists" could not be posited of anything. No-thing would exist. That's accurate, and accurate on both ends of that predication.

In fact, this is the very thing we ought to have expected to be the case, given mathematics and randomness. Moreover, given that the "other ways" things could have been are so multitudinous (see the Fine Tuning Argument) why did it turn out that things are as they are? It looks like there are some constraints (or laws) that govern the state of affairs in which we find ourselves: but why would we expect anything as orderly as a "law" to emerge out of an infinite "soup" of random energy, let alone anything so organized as a single "thing" of any kind...a rock, a planet, a galaxy or a person?

There is no reason we know of why the universe should have "decided" to organize itself spontaneously into "things" of any kind. And yet, here we are. The question, then, is "How did that come about?" Or "How do we explain that it did?"

That's what the question is really all about. It's not about whether "nothing" exists.

Philosophy is about discovering the "why" of phenomena. The who what when how is for science.

It would be nice if the division was so neat. But it's not. While it's true that science is not able to answer "why" questions, the "why" questions that philosophy addresses themselves often proceed from phenomenological observations. Philosophy does not operate in a vacuum, sealed off from the world, even if science can be thought of that way.

I have come to the conclusion that this realm is much like a video game, with the goal of: ESCAPING THE GAME.

That's a very Gnostic thought.

However, it would require that the "game designer" was an evil demiurge of some kind, and that that something else prior to the demiurge had made the escape-routine possible. So it would need to be powered by two "gods": one contingent, limited and evil or deceptive, and another transcendent, less limited and "good."

That's a lot to ask of a cosmology.