Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[bahman]

What I mean is precisely what I said.

There exists the successor function. When applied to Nothing (0) it gives you Something (1)

Oh, you are not making any sense! Do you?

What's confusing you here?

0 is nothing.
1 is something.

The successor to nothing is something: succ(0) = 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_function

Do you want it in English?

??? -> NO eggs (no-thing)
-> 1 egg (some-thing)

I am not talking about mathematical functions. I am talking about reality.

[Skepdick]

I am not talking about mathematical functions. I am talking about reality.

No, you aren't. You are talking about logical possibility.

You are asking whether it's logically possible to take Nothing as input and produce Something as output.

The people who believe that to be the case - the people who believe that to be possible are called Mathematicians. Another less common name for such people is Nihilists. Which comes from the Latin "Nihil" - Nothing.

Nihil -> Nil -> Nothing.

Surely you've read Parmenides' arguments? Ex nihilo nihil fit.

[bahman]

I am not talking about mathematical functions. I am talking about reality.

No, you aren't. You are talking about logical possibility.

Again, I am talking about reality mentioning that nothing to something (the universe) is logically impossible.

[Skepdick]

I am not talking about mathematical functions. I am talking about reality.

No, you aren't. You are talking about logical possibility.

Again, I am talking about reality mentioning that nothing to something (the universe) is logically impossible.

I know.

And I am trying to Explain to you that the people who believe contrary to you.
The people who believe that something can come from nothing are the same people who believe that the number 1 comes from nothing.

It comes from 0.

Mathematicians.

[bahman]

No, you aren't. You are talking about logical possibility.

Again, I am talking about reality mentioning that nothing to something (the universe) is logically impossible.

I know.

And I am trying to Explain to you that the people who believe contrary to you.
The people who believe that something can come from nothing are the same people who believe that the number 1 comes from nothing.

It comes from 0.

Mathematicians.

Ok, I knew that but that is not my concern.

[Skepdick]

Again, I am talking about reality mentioning that nothing to something (the universe) is logically impossible.

I know.

And I am trying to Explain to you that the people who believe contrary to you.
The people who believe that something can come from nothing are the same people who believe that the number 1 comes from nothing.

It comes from 0.

Mathematicians.

Ok, I knew that but that is not my concern.

That is your concern. You are applying the (Nothing -> Something) function to cosmology, and ultimately whether reality could've come from Nothing.
Could reality come from The NIhil? Zero.

Does 1 proceed from 0?

Logicians and Computer Scientists are united in saying: No.
Mathematicians stand alone in saying: Yes.

Let the next generation of philosophical warfare begin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_c ... om_nothing

[bahman]

I know.

And I am trying to Explain to you that the people who believe contrary to you.
The people who believe that something can come from nothing are the same people who believe that the number 1 comes from nothing.

It comes from 0.

Mathematicians.

Ok, I knew that but that is not my concern.

That is your concern. You are applying the (Nothing -> Something) function to cosmology, and ultimately whether reality could've come from Nothing.
Could reality come from The NIhil? Zero.

Does 1 proceed from 0?

Logicians and Computer Scientists are united in saying: No.
Mathematicians stand alone in saying: Yes.

Let the next generation of philosophical warfare begin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_c ... om_nothing

It is not my concern. I am not applying function on nothing. To me, nothing to something is a phenomenon that cannot happen because of the reason mentioned in OP.

[Skepdick]

It is not my concern. I am not applying function on nothing. To me, nothing to something is a phenomenon that cannot happen because of the reason mentioned in OP.

I can only explain it to you - I can't understand it for you.

If you reject the possibility/instantiation of a logical Nothing -> Something then you must reject the existence of the Mathematical successor function.

s: 0 -> 1 does not exist.

[bahman]

It is not my concern. I am not applying function on nothing. To me, nothing to something is a phenomenon that cannot happen because of the reason mentioned in OP.

I can only explain it to you - I can't understand it for you.

If you reject the possibility/instantiation of a logical Nothing -> Something then you must reject the existence of the Mathematical successor function.

s: 0 -> 1 does not exist.

Something that is logically possible is not necessarily physically possible as well.

[Skepdick]

Something that is logically possible is not necessarily physically possible as well.

But you aren't talking about what's logically possible.
You are talking about what's logically impossible.

Are you suggesting that logically impossible things could still be physically possible?

[bahman]

Something that is logically possible is not necessarily physically possible as well.

But you aren't talking about what's logically possible.
You are talking about what's logically impossible.

Are you suggesting that logically impossible things could still be physically possible?

Please check the following: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moda ... rgEpisModa

[bahman]

Something that is logically possible is not necessarily physically possible as well.

But you aren't talking about what's logically possible.
You are talking about what's logically impossible.

Are you suggesting that logically impossible things could still be physically possible?

Perhaps I should have said that nothing to something is physically impossible. I however have an argument in the form of syllogism:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

[Skepdick]

Something that is logically possible is not necessarily physically possible as well.

But you aren't talking about what's logically possible.
You are talking about what's logically impossible.

Are you suggesting that logically impossible things could still be physically possible?

Please check the following: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moda ... rgEpisModa

That doesn't address anything.

In your mind which of these two inferences is invalid?

A. If X is logically impossible then X is physically impossible.
B. If X is logically possible then X is physically possible.

[Skepdick]

Perhaps I should have said that nothing to something is physically impossible. I however have an argument in the form of syllogism:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

So how much time do you need to manufacture the number 0 from nothing?

[bahman]

But you aren't talking about what's logically possible.
You are talking about what's logically impossible.

Are you suggesting that logically impossible things could still be physically possible?

Please check the following: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moda ... rgEpisModa

That doesn't address anything.

You need to look at the diagram. Something physically impossible does not mean that it is logically impossible.

In your mind which of these two inferences is invalid?

A. If X is logically impossible then X is physically impossible.
B. If X is logically possible then X is physically possible.

I am saying that something physically impossible does not mean that it is logically impossible so I have a problem with B.