Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[QED]

Thanks Curious ~ if ever I get a result from this I'll post it up. I often wonder how much "being in" on the tricks and shortcuts used by nature informs peoples thinking. Of course it doesn't take all the mystery out of it, but it does cast a different light on the big questions we all want answered.

[harvey1]

You may say that it is true that there is no life on venus. This would be true or false regardless of the question being asked. The truthfulness of the statement is wholly dependent upon the fact, the fact is not dependent upon the statement. Truth is dependent upon fact while logic is dependent upon understanding fact.

Of course, you are assuming that logic is not an irreducible quality of the universe. I'm saying that this is a false assumption since if some material brute fact is the irreducible quality of the universe, then why are we so lucky to have the kind of universe that brings about things like inflating universes when none of the algorithms we can design simulate such complexity.

While logic may require a mind, the fact, or truthfulness of the fact, requires no mind to ask the question or to answer it. The truthfulness of the fact is not determined by the mind but by the state of the fact. You seem to be asserting that fact is determined by some preordained truth table which all fact must magically adhere to rather than the truth being derived from the state of the fact.

If we look at the situation open-mindedly, then we are compelled to consider the other possibility that the universe is a consequence of logic. If such is the case, then we are also compelled to view a preordained truth table as existing logically prior to a material world. This alternative view compels us to believe in a God.

[harvey1]

It's not a great leap to assume logic exists as a primitive.

I feel that this is the case, but I can't begin to assess the assumptions that are being made to arrive at this feeling.

I feel that science is producing the real laws of the universe. I feel that evolutionary science is producing facts about the history of life on the earth. I feel a lot of things, but these feelings compel me to believe that logic is persuading me correctly about the facts that we cannot truly know.

Now, if a criteria must be satisfied against a statement of L, how do you suppose that is possible without a background Mind making it possible?

This, as we all know, is where the problem arises. It seems obvious to me that mind is just another measurement device. A spirit-level or Operational-Amplifier equally qualify for this sort of job. Using your terminology, reduced states of these measuring devices would also facilitate satisfaction of logical criteria if the initial assumptions are correct.

No, because only mind can understand and believe that a truth relation has been satisfied. It is what is needed in order to differentiate a truth relation from a false relation. No measuring device can do that.

[QED]

only mind can understand and believe that a truth relation has been satisfied. It is what is needed in order to differentiate a truth relation from a false relation. No measuring device can do that.

This seems obviously wrong to me. Surely truth relations can be satisfied by all manner of material interactions. But you claim this to be an exclusive property of mind! You even use terms like understand and believe -- both examples of cognition that are not hard-wired (so as to speak) to particular outcomes in the world, but can only produce indirect results by influencing the actions of sentient creatures.

Mind as we understand it can only run on a material substrate. This seems like a pretty reasonable thing to say wouldn't you agree? All the intelligence we have ever encountered has been the product of material interactions of one form or another. We never experience intelligence floating around in the air -- nor would we expect to. We can see a continuum of intelligence rising from single cells through plants and on to brains. Recall the sea-squirt that digests its brain when no longer required for guiding it to it's life-long home? I think you owe a pretty good explanation if you want to keep on pressing this particular assertion.

[Curious]

Of course, you are assuming that logic is not an irreducible quality of the universe. I'm saying that this is a false assumption since if some material brute fact is the irreducible quality of the universe, then why are we so lucky to have the kind of universe that brings about things like inflating universes when none of the algorithms we can design simulate such complexity.

Actually I am not assuming anything, it is you who are assuming. Luck does not come into it. If you were a sentient plasma ball you could just as easily say how come I am lucky enough to be in a universe of total plasma which is the only possible universe that plasma sentience could evolve.

While logic may require a mind, the fact, or truthfulness of the fact, requires no mind to ask the question or to answer it. The truthfulness of the fact is not determined by the mind but by the state of the fact. You seem to be asserting that fact is determined by some preordained truth table which all fact must magically adhere to rather than the truth being derived from the state of the fact.

If we look at the situation open-mindedly, then we are compelled to consider the other possibility that the universe is a consequence of logic. If such is the case, then we are also compelled to view a preordained truth table as existing logically prior to a material world. This alternative view compels us to believe in a God.

Open minded does not mean without basis or unreasoning. Logic is derived from fact not the other way round. Change the facts and you change the logic that works. Change the logic and you just get wrong answers, it does not change the fact.
I don't see how a consideration of a possibility can compel the belief of all it's offshoots without any basis.
As for believing in God, I already do but can't seriously follow such line of reasoning as it is built on the sand of the shore. If you are to find a correct method of reasoning towards God you won't only believe in God, you will know God.

[harvey1]

only mind can understand and believe that a truth relation has been satisfied. It is what is needed in order to differentiate a truth relation from a false relation. No measuring device can do that.

This seems obviously wrong to me. Surely truth relations can be satisfied by all manner of material interactions.

It depends on what you mean by "truth relation." If you mean that an actual truth relation exists, then I disagree that a material interation can satisfy a truth relation since the relation is between a statement and a material state. If the relation exists, that means the statement exists (i.e., it is not a consequence of the material interaction itself). If the statement exists, then this is part of language and language requires comprehension. The only element in the universe that can comprehend a statement (or language) is mind. Even a CPU is not comprehending a statement.

Mind as we understand it can only run on a material substrate. This seems like a pretty reasonable thing to say wouldn't you agree?

No, I disagree. There are many repeatable phenomena in the natural world. For example, there are properties of biological sources where the identical phenomena is reproduced in non-biological sources. One of the major lessons of the Cosmos is that identical phenomena can be exhibited from multiple sources. Even mathematical designs, a strictly human artifact of intelligence, are reproduced by nature. Mind seems to me an easy property for reality to possess. Afterall, what is mind? To me, it is a cognitive property that possesses an understanding of language. If reality is language-driven, as it appears, then a mind embedded in the nature of reality would be a natural outcome.

All the intelligence we have ever encountered has been the product of material interactions of one form or another. We never experience intelligence floating around in the air -- nor would we expect to. We can see a continuum of intelligence rising from single cells through plants and on to brains. Recall the sea-squirt that digests its brain when no longer required for guiding it to it's life-long home? I think you owe a pretty good explanation if you want to keep on pressing this particular assertion.

As I mentioned, we see the universe behaving intelligently when it acts to forbid certain kinds of information gathering processes in a manner that would require a sophisticated program to duplicate. Quantum erasure can provide such kind of sophisticated example.

[Curious]

It depends on what you mean by "truth relation." If you mean that an actual truth relation exists, then I disagree that a material interation can satisfy a truth relation since the relation is between a statement and a material state. If the relation exists, that means the statement exists (i.e., it is not a consequence of the material interaction itself). If the statement exists, then this is part of language and language requires comprehension. The only element in the universe that can comprehend a statement (or language) is mind. Even a CPU is not comprehending a statement.

If I jump from a height of 10 meters onto a trampoline I will bounce,if I jump into water I will sink and if I land on solid ground I will probably break. The outcome is the result of the interactions between myself, the earth and whatever I land upon/in. The interaction is dependent upon the inherent nature of the interacting elements. The ground is hard and I am softer so I break. The water is softer still so its surface breaks and I sink. The trampoline springs expand and then contract so I bounce. These natures are inherent to the elements described and as such the interactions require no mind to determine this result.
A bullet travelling at great speed will tear through flesh if it meets it. This is due to the nature of the bullet, the nature of flesh and the nature of the forces involved. These natures are physical and can be measured to the tiniest degree. To say that the bullet rips flesh is true and therefore requires language and mind to allow the statement and truthfulness to be validated seems a very strange argument indeed.

[harvey1]

To say that the bullet rips flesh is true and therefore requires language and mind to allow the statement and truthfulness to be validated seems a very strange argument indeed.

Are there really objects such as bullets, or are is this just a human conception of billions of atoms in a particular configuration? Are there even atoms, or are these just human conceptions of sub-elementary particles in a particular configuration? Are there sub-elementary particles, or are these just conceptions of mathematical strings? Are there mathematical strings, or is this just a conception of mathematical structures conforming to certain rules of logico-mathematical relations?

You say that this argument is strange, but what are your reasons for rejecting it other than it does not conform to an atheistic view of the world?

[Curious]

You say that this argument is strange, but what are your reasons for rejecting it other than it does not conform to an atheistic view of the world?

I am not an atheist so why would I wish to conform to this point of view?
I disagree with your assumption on the grounds that it does not hold up to scrutiny. If you could in some way explain adequately why this mind and logic must precede fact then I may think differently.
You assert that logic determines fact and the interaction of fact and this is external and precedent to fact. I suggest that the logic of the fact is due to the nature of the fact and this nature is brought about by the fact itself. This is what I sought to explain by my examples. The water acts like water because it is water not because a mind or external logic determines this. The logic and interaction need only exist when the fact itself exists.
Steel is hard due to its physical nature, that is why it is hard and we can change its hardness by changing it physically. Diamond is hard due to it's physical structure while graphite is soft, the fact that diamond can cut graphite is due to this fact. You can say it is logical that diamond cuts graphite but you derive this logic from the nature of the fact.

[ST88]

... if some material brute fact is the irreducible quality of the universe, then why are we so lucky to have the kind of universe that brings about things like inflating universes when none of the algorithms we can design simulate such complexity.

Hey, give the algorithm designers a little break, they only came up with fractals not too long ago. How long are you going to give them to come up with such calculations before you think they should really give up on this? Or should we just chuck it all now and say to heck with it?