I've got plenty of nothing.

I've just checked and there's nothing in my pocket. Now, I have nothing to say, nothing to show, nothing to think about, nothing to do. Good thing it's a holiday here.

I've got plenty of nothing — magritte

and nothing's got plenty of me!!!! :party:

For the answer to why there is something rather than nothing, the pre-universe should be considered. In the pre-universe, there are two possibilities. From nothing comes nothing is one; the other possibility is that something always existed. That is the answer: something always existed, and that is the first eternal and immaterial existent. An eternal and immaterial first existent created the material universe.

For an additional clarification, there is no time in the pre-universe. Time is a function of motion in the material universe. And, too, since there is a material universe, there must be a cause.

There is nothing: at times of sleep when the Mind
(Dao) is totally at rest.

There is something: when there Mind (Dao) is busy creating.

Sleep/Awake

Life/Death

It's cyclical as is everything in Life.

Why does the Mind/Dao exist? In our plane of existence, we can only know it, not see see it as a whole. Maybe some can see more.

There is nothing mysterious, but that people feel that the question is pointless, does lady bare the laziness of some Minds.

To answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" in a satisfying way, I think we have to face the possibility that there could have been nothing. To do this, think about the question as similar to asking how you can start wit 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). Because there's no way to turn a 0 into a 1, the only way to start with 0 and end up with 1 is if that 0 was not actually 0 but a 1 in disguise. To me, I don't think there's a way around that. That is, the situation we usually visualize as "nothing" can also be visualized as a "something".

I define "nothing" as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic/Platonic realms, abstract concepts, possibilities/potenialities, and the lack of all minds to consider the supposed lack of all").

How can "nothing" be a "something"? I first define a thing that exists as a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together to create a new unit whole. This grouping or new unit whole can be thought of as a surface or boundary denoting what is grouped together from what is not. Then, if you apply this to "nothing", if there were "nothing", that would be it. That nothingness would be the entirety of all that is present. It would be the all. Entireties and all are groupings, which means that "nothing" can be seen from this different perspective as being a "something".

I don't see why there has to be a "why."

Because there's no way to turn a 0 into a 1, the only way to start with 0 and end up with 1 is if that 0 was not actually 0 but a 1 in disguise. — Roger

There's no known way to start with 1 either, so the whole "nothing is still something" point, doesn't close the explanatory gap at all.

Roger, there is nothing and no-thing. In the pre-universe either something comes from nothing or there was an eternal and immaterial (no-thing) first existant. It is so simple. In the pre-universe only the immaterial existed. Of course, there is no time and there never was anytime anywhere.

I wasn't saying to start with a 1. I was saying that we start with nothing. But, another way of visualizing nothing is as a something. They're two different ways of visualizing and thinking about the same thing.

I don't see it as a valid question, more like a waste of time.

In the pre-universe either something comes from nothing or there was an eternal and immaterial (no-thing) first existant. It is so simple. — val p miranda

You seem to be thinking of the hypothetical pre-universe as something that we can reason about, as if the logic of our world can be applied to what might be completely alien to us.

I don't see it as a valid question, more like a waste of time. — Darkneos

Ditto. Like discussing an afterlife.

Roger, you have it right: the "1" always existed. Since the universe is not an illusion and from nothing comes nothing in the pre-universe what remains is an immaterial existence that initiated the material universe.

Jgill, I just use my imagination. As for a waste of time, for some it is, but not for all philosophers.

Big, useless questions are malfunctions of that sloppy calculator between your ears. Gather ye dollars and followers while ye may.

Those other philosophers need to wise up.

“Nothing” cannot be described, because even the thought of nothing isn’t nothing. We can only attempt to imperfectly describe all that it is not, all that it doesn’t have.

It doesn’t have properties. It doesn’t have any constraint. But then I see it as the same as infinite possibility, which cannot be described either. It is nothing, but it can become everything.

And then why something rather than nothing ... because there was nothing to prevent nothing from becoming something.

“But nothing cannot become” ... well in the absence of rule it can.

Actually there is a lot of nothing, so it’s not either/or.

In the beginning, when there seemed to be nothing, suddenly, out of the blue, a divine spark was ignited (from where no one can tell) that burst forth into a vast swiftly expanding perturbation of energy rotating and revolving about and cascading among itself, until finally settling down into a semblance of order. This Order, though not there in the beginning, was seen to have been planted, as a seed, in the beginning...

As the universe expanded, Order spawned children, smaller orders, from which sprang the elements of all being, matter in all its diversity, from which everything is ultimately derived, and in turn was derived from this matter all the things we know by our eyes and fingers, all the visible and tangible, both the animate and inanimate, and it became clear that the animate somehow mirrored the essence of that first divine spark that came out of nowhere...

Finally, Man came to be, and he soon realized he had a soul with which he could perceive order, and after he had perceived enough of the original order he concluded that he was the final recipient of that initial divine spark, because, as he perceived, he “is the particular being that can know the universal, the the temporal being that is aware of eternity, the part that can survey the whole, the effect that seeks the cause,” the final link b/w the macrocosm and the microcosm.

Thusly, my friends, it appears that cosmology is the story of a wedding, a desire in the instinct of that first outburst, that first ineffable spark to produce a lover of himself.

I know this is a myth...

...but it’s not JUST a myth.

I view it as a religious question. Evocative of gratitude.

It is nothing, but it can become everything. — leo

Very pleasing and Zen-like. A koan? :up:

There is no "nothing" which is an alternative to something and would exist if there wasn't something. — Ciceronianus the White

I like this. I’ve been discussing this with a friend who just takes me around in circles. My feeling is that “nothing” only exists as a construct in binary terms. Something cannot come from nothing, and nothing cannot come from something.

However, if there is no “nothing” and only “something” does that mean something has always been something?

Everything that is, has been or will be, had, has and will have a principle, and that is inevitable. The principle is in a sense the foundation of anything because it has its foundation in the principle.

As far as I can tell, nothing is, as is generally understood, not a thing. Suppose, now that there's a world with only two objects viz. X and Y and they're different from each other in the sense X is not Y and Y is not X.

Nothing = The empty set = { }

[D n E = The intersections of sets D and E..........D u E = The union of sets D and E]

In this world, let set A = {X} and set B = {Y} and nothing would be neither X nor Y or both not X and not Y.

The set Not A or A' = {Y, { }} because nothing is not X.

Similarly, the set Not B or B' = {X, { }}

Nothing is Not A and Not B (neither X nor Y) = A' n B' = {X, { }} n {Y, { }} = {{ }}, Also note that according to set theory the empty set [{ }] is a subset of every set i.e. it can be said to be an element of all sets.

But A' n B' = (A u B)' by DeMorgan's law and A u B = {X, { }} u {Y, { }} = (X, Y, { }}. Again, the empty set [{ }] is a subset of every set and so can be considered an element of all sets. So A' n B' = (A u B)' = {X, Y, { }}'

That means Nothing = A' n B' = {{ }} = (A u B)' = {X, Y, { }}'. This is a contradiction! A complement of a set [(A u B)'] can't contain an element that's in that set [{ }].

How did we arrive at this contradiction?

We ended up with this contradiction because we assumed that the nothing can be put in a negated category such as Not A, Not B, or, in our world, in categories such as Not red, Not solid, Not good, etc and this is in agreement with my intuition regarding the issue viz. we can't assert that nothing doesn't possess a property over and above the fact that we can't claim that nothing possesses a property. So, it's incorrect to say that nothing is not <insert property>.

If so, I present the following argument that nothing is an impossibility,

1. If nothing is possible then, nothing is neither a this nor a not this [this stands for a property/quality]
2. Impossible that neither a this nor a not this [It's a contradiction]
Ergo,
3. Nothing is impossible
4. If nothing is impossible then something must be
Ergo,
5. Something must be and is

This is why there's something rather than nothing.

:chin:

Nothing = The empty set = { } — TheMadFool

The empty set is not nothing. But it contains nothing. At least in naive set theory. :nerd:

The empty set is not nothing. But it contains nothing. At least in naive set theory. :nerd: — jgill

Suppose the univeraal set U = A u B

Well, suppose A = {x, y} and B = {v, w}

Suppose N = Nothing. So, { } = {N}

{x} is a subset of A and x is an element of A

{ } is a subset of A, { } has N as an element. So A = {x, y, N}

Similarly,

{v} is a subset of B and v is an element of B

{ } is a subset of B, { } has N as an element. So B = {v, w, N}

Not A = A' = {v, w}

Not B = B' = {x, y}

Nothing = N = Not A and Not B = A' n B' = { }

A' n B' = (A u B)' = {x, y, v, w, N}' = { } = {N} ???

A complement of a set can't contain an element of that set. Contradiction!

Ergo,

1. { } can't be a subset of every set

and/or

2. We can't say that Nothing is not <insert anything>. The best philsophical concept for what I'm getting at is category error.

For Nothing to be, Nothing must be neither something nor not-something but that's a contradiction. Ergo, Nothing is impossible. That's why there's something.

{ } is a subset of A, { } has N as an element. So A = {x, y, N} — TheMadFool

Since N is an element of A, it is something: an element of A. :worry:

Ergo, Nothing is impossible. That's why there's something. — TheMadFool

I'm so glad you have proven this to your satisfaction. It shows that something is nothing to worry about. Thank you. :up:

Since N is an element of A, it is something: an element of A. :worry: — jgill

That's the mistake we make.

I'm so glad you have proven this to your satisfaction. It shows that something is nothing to worry about. Thank you. :up: — jgill

It all depends on how you interpret the meaning of not-x where x = anything (individuals to categories).

In fact, it looks like a set-theoretic paradox.

The first existent, immaterial and eternal space, created the first thing (matter) after being a potential that became actual liberating the energy of the big bang. There was a first existent since the material universe exists. This immaterial space became the actual space of the universe.

And nobody stops to ask just what "nothing" it is in question. — tim wood

"Our nada, who art in nada, ..."