Philosophy Now Forum

Is it possible to obtain something from nothing?

I think ultimately it comes down to what we define as nothing, it's an undeniable truth that in order to have anything tangible, the potential for physicality has to exist prior to any manifestation of substance. So is this potential necessarily a something? Or could it be a principle, a mere matter of fact such as those contained within the body of mathematics.

If we use the word nothing to denote only no physical thing or active force, and allow that principles such as addition and multiplication are not things in themselves, or contingent upon the existence of substance, then we can also allow that certain principles are not existent by virtue of a cause, and that facts such as those contained in the body of mathematics are independent of any physical existence. So by preceding any cause, and not themselves being an effect, certain principles may in fact be a first cause without need of infinite regress.

There is talk of infinite universes, with differing physical laws, but can it be sensibly suggested that in any physical manifestation, the laws of mathematics and geometry we know could fail to apply? I don't see how, so I can't see any eventuality in which these principles can ever not exist.

So if it's possible to have certain principles that are constant, and are simply matters of fact, could there be some matter of fact that is the potential for physicality and allows for the manifestation of tangible substance? I believe that unless we are prepared to except magical phenomena, the idea that prior to what is physical, exists principles by which it's produced, is a necessary conclusion.

When we think of light, and the illumination that comes through its action, it can be seen that what gives rise to image is not a property of light or object, but through the act of conscious acknowledgement, which in the absence of life would still exist as a principle. And so although it can be said that without the mind that contains the ability to realise that principle, images would not result from the existence of light and objects, it must be admitted that the principles and potential for visualising would still exist.

If this wasn't a fact, then we wouldn't have the ability now. The fact we can sense and acknowledge events, must mean that in some way that principle has always existed potentially. And likewise the fact we have physical things now, must mean the potential is another permanent principle, and that possibly, along with all principles, it's realised by the all encompassing principle of conscious acknowledgment.

What I mean by this last mentioned principle, is that maybe conscious acknowledgement is the necessary validation of any event, an for any possible event to become an actual event, it must be acknowledged as such. So the whole potential of any and all events, is made possible through the primary, and secondary principles of unconsciousness and consciousness.

yeah einsteins personality and his being were like all of us unique in event terms.but e =mc/2 was always going to be part of the event and explained in the right way at the exact right time inside the event by einstein in germany and the usa.

I suppose all things would have to come in the form of an event, and come from the process of validation. Whether or not the product of this process would conform to the idea of a thing that is common to most peoples mind is another question, I suppose what I personally have in mind is best described as the idea of a thing.

I'm not actually suggesting the formation of substance is possible without the interaction between mind, and whatever it is that stimulates it. What I'm suggesting is that the stimulating agent is an independent reality of fundamental principles, that don't rely on acknowledgement for their existence, but are in themselves a permanent foundation that partly dictate what can be experienced.

So concepts such as dimension, form and quantity, are fundamental and distinct from any comprehension of them, and dictate what can be experienced as sensible coherent events. And subsequently act as a dictate of what can amount to our collective reality, and in a way act as a marker between reality and fantasy.

well james nothing must be the normal existance status as far as consciousness goes.and some of us remember it from our positions in something.so we know that something aint real the event aint real.because realtive to the nothing that we remember something aint nothing.somethings ok though.

take e=mc^2 no one who has any sense doubts the validity of this equation, on the other hand if you ask why the speed of light is c you hit a brick wall and all you can say is it just is, and seemingly 0 mass objects always propagate at c and mass objects can never travel at c why this is the case is also like asking why there are stars in the universe. Some things are constants and intrinsic to reality, asking why a=c is not that much different from asking why we exist at all. The fine structure constant which dictates the force of electromagnetisms strength is accepted to be 7.29735257×10−3

which is defined by other constants thusly:



Why is it equal to 7.29735257×10−3 and not larger or smaller, we know if the force is to weak life would not exist, and we know that if it was too strong likewise matter would not exist in any form that could form life, but that just throws up the question why is alpha?

The answers are philosophically moot. But the anthropic theories are widespread ie if we didn't exist x.



The mystery about α is actually a double mystery. The first mystery – the origin of its numerical value α ≈ 1/137 has been recognized and discussed for decades. The second mystery – the range of its domain – is generally unrecognized.
—Malcolm H. Mac Gregor, M.H. MacGregor (2007). The Power of Alpha. World Scientific. p. 69. ISBN 978-981-256-961-5

If alpha [the fine-structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.
—Max Born, A.I. Miller (2009). Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. W.W. Norton & Co. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-393-06532-9

i like the term thusly.im gona try and use it my self.thanks blags for that thusly.

jackles wrote:i like the term thusly.im gona try and use it my self.thanks blags for that thusly.

You are thusly most welcome.

Blaggard wrote:take e=mc^2 no one who has any sense doubts the validity of this equation, on the other hand if you ask why the speed of light is c you hit a brick wall and all you can say is it just is, and seemingly 0 mass objects always propagate at c and mass objects can never travel at c why this is the case is also like asking why there are stars in the universe. Some things are constants and intrinsic to reality, asking why a=c is not that much different from asking why we exist at all. The fine structure constant which dictates the force of electromagnetisms strength is accepted to be 7.29735257×10−3

which is defined by other constants thusly:



Why is it equal to 7.29735257×10−3 and not larger or smaller, we know if the force is to weak life would not exist, and we know that if it was too strong likewise matter would not exist in any form that could form life, but that just throws up the question why is alpha?

The answers are philosophically moot. But the anthropic theories are widespread ie if we didn't exist x.



The mystery about α is actually a double mystery. The first mystery – the origin of its numerical value α ≈ 1/137 has been recognized and discussed for decades. The second mystery – the range of its domain – is generally unrecognized.
—Malcolm H. Mac Gregor, M.H. MacGregor (2007). The Power of Alpha. World Scientific. p. 69. ISBN 978-981-256-961-5

If alpha [the fine-structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.
—Max Born, A.I. Miller (2009). Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. W.W. Norton & Co. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-393-06532-9

I occasionally read books such as the i'm on currently 'Massive - the Higgs boson and the greatest hunt in science (Ian Sample)' which dictate everything in language for the likes of me, a layman, on such matters and this post of yours has me salivating!!
Finally i can see something concrete for the maths in the form of these constants...such as the electromagnetic one above...awesome! I've never seen that before and even though the formula would require a great deal of research for myself to fathom, its just nice to see a solid piece of the puzzle...dangling with some extra food for thought.
Thankyou!

attofishpi wrote: I occasionally read books such as the i'm on currently 'Massive - the Higgs boson and the greatest hunt in science (Ian Sample)' which dictate everything in language for the likes of me, a layman, on such matters and this post of yours has me salivating!!
Finally i can see something concrete for the maths in the form of these constants...such as the electromagnetic one above...awesome! I've never seen that before and even though the formula would require a great deal of research for myself to fathom, its just nice to see a solid piece of the puzzle...dangling with some extra food for thought.
Thankyou!

You are thusly most welcome as I said before, and trust me I am hardly a layman on these things and I am still as puzzled as the best of them, but isn't that what keeps you going, if you knew why, and how, and what, what would be the point of life's great adventure.

Learn observe and read all you can, I have done that and I am still none the wiser, but I am at least a little more sure I am happier for it. That in essence I suppose is why I enjoy my life, although it is of course subjective, but the joy of knowledge for me gives life wings!

Blaggard wrote:
If alpha [the fine-structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.
—Max Born, A.I. Miller (2009). Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. W.W. Norton & Co. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-393-06532-9

I guess the implied assumption is that "why" is a legitimate question. It has been considered a legitimate question in philosophy for a couple of thousand years. The problem is that it may not be a legitimate scientific question.

Ginkgo wrote:

Blaggard wrote:
If alpha [the fine-structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.
—Max Born, A.I. Miller (2009). Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. W.W. Norton & Co. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-393-06532-9

I guess the implied assumption is that "why" is a legitimate question. It has been considered a legitimate question in philosophy for a couple of thousand years. The problem is that it may not be a legitimate scientific question.

You are of course precisely right, but then it is philosophies cause the whys, science has been divorced from whys for some years now, and of course it is your flag now to carry and so you should.

It's not an implied assumption it is just your job, get to it soldier, pick up that flag and if you can run with it well then kudos.

Blaggard wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Blaggard wrote:
If alpha [the fine-structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.
—Max Born, A.I. Miller (2009). Deciphering the Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung. W.W. Norton & Co. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-393-06532-9

I guess the implied assumption is that "why" is a legitimate question. It has been considered a legitimate question in philosophy for a couple of thousand years. The problem is that it may not be a legitimate scientific question.

You are of course precisely right, but then it is philosophies cause the whys, science has been divorced from whys for some years now, and of course it is your flag now to carry and so you should.

It's not an implied assumption it is just your job, get to it soldier, pick up that flag and if you can run with it well then kudos.

I just can't, even if I wanted to. It's so darn annoying I just can't shake purpose. What is even more annoying is the possibility that whoever put the universe together did it in a piecemeal fashion.

nothing = relativity without objects =sizeless nonlocality
something = relativity with objects = sizelike locality
so nonlocality = potential objective relativity
nonlocality = potential reality
fact =
potential fiction with fictional facts= e=mc\2
zzzzz