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?

[harvey1]

I'm still not getting why a mind must be present prior to the rules. We use these very rules to form logical assumptions not the other way round.

That's right. The universe in which we live already follows rules prior to our being here. Our minds do not contribute to the nature of the world. The world is how it is even if we were not here as observers.

We do not create a logic and then expect the rules to fall into place to fit our logic. We form our logic depending on the rules we have. If we say a tiger is a cat and a cat is a mammal therefore a tiger is a mammal we do not make it so by the use of our logic, we form this conclusion using logic depending on the known set of rules and sets.

Exactly. The world is here for us to come along and make sense of it. The sense we make is summarized in laws (e.g., logic, mathematics, physics, etc.).

Before this logical assumption, a tiger would still be a mammal. If cats were reptiles, our logic would lead us to the conclusion that a tiger was a reptile and again the tiger would be reptilian before our logic lead us to this. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that rules are dictated by logic when quite obviously logic is dictated by the rules.

Well, logic is the rules, or at least part of them. The question becomes though, what would the rules be if there were no universe of stuff? The rules would still exist if there is at least one logical fact. In the case of a world without stuff, there's still a logical structure existing.

If there is a logical structure even if the world is without stuff, then all logical statements are still self-consistent, and therefore true. But, notice, this is a semantic concept, so it is semantic concepts that exist. If semantic concepts exist, then as a converse so does the mind that comprehends those concepts.

[ST88]

Perhaps I understand the way you look at it. You might be thinking that if logic statement L is objectively valid, then the truth of L does not depend on a background mind agreeing it is true. It is, afterall, either true or not.

Yes, you have that correct.

The problem with that view, though, is that you are not considering that the L is normative with respect to the universe by causing somethign. That is, it's truth does not depend on being just descriptive of the universe's behavior, rather, the universe's behavior depends on L being true.

I don't know if you can say that one precedes the other. If we look at it in a certain way, we can say, the universe behaves like an L universe because L is true. However, it would be equally valid to say that because this is an L universe, L is true. That is, you can't separate the logic from the condition. It all comes down to how you ask the question. For example:

Therefore, it becomes important to ask what makes L true, and in addition, how is it that L's being true has any effect at all on the world.

If you ask Why L is true, you are essentially making a value judgment about L that is already separate from the universe in which L is true. Asking Why is this an L universe? is essentially the same question and goes to "instantiation" cosmology, where instruments that are accurate enough to let us know what actually happened at that moment have yet to be made.

In other words, L satisfies some self-consistency condition of U, and therefore it is true. The term satisfies is a semantic relation that exists for all statements that are true in U.

I don't think that by using the word "satisfy", you can pun it into making it true for the purposes of defining intelligence. The term "satisfy," as you are using it in the first instance is a mathematical term. 44 satisfies the equation X=4*11. It's just a term of description for a mechanistic operation. It is not a semantic device, but a syntactic one.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be presenting this issue as a problem that the universe had to solve at one point in order for it to exist (i.e, The condition is 4*11, now what can I put there to make it make sense?) If so, it's not necessary to view it this way. If not, well, you can ignore the paragraph also.

Furthermore, your assertion that there are rules the universe must follow because of this logic is misleading. There is no reason to expect that the pre-universe condition was devoid of any logic at all even if those logic rules were different from the ones we enjoy now. Instantiation of this universe does not imply a beginning to all existence, just a beginning to the set of rules we can observe.

I'm not saying the pre-universe condition was devoid of logic, nor am I saying that the instantiation of this universe implies a beginning to all existence. I am saying that even if the (meta)universe that precedes our universe in it's cause is finite or infinite, it still must be governed by some kind of logic, and therefore a background mind is needed to satisfy this requirement.

I still can't go with you saying that logic requires intelligence. Maybe I lack the required background in information theory or something? Do you have a good link for this?

[Cathar1950]

ST88 wrote:
If you can assert that logic is required for the universe to exist and your definition of logic requires comprehension by the mind, I don't see how you can avoid a supreme intelligence. However, logic is independent of consciousness. Your assertion that "logic" is gibberish without a conscious mind is utter nonsense. Logic exists whether we notice it or not in the same way that mathematics is something that we discover and not invent. The "logic" you speak of that must exist if the universe exists is encapsulated entirely within the mechanics of physics. No one would assert that a conscious mind that understands physics is required for physics to exist.

I was under the impression that Mathematics as well as Logic were human constructs not something discovered. Although we can discover correlations between reality and these constructs it is due to the development and refinement of Math and logic. But that there was not one to one correspondence. They even have theorems to prove it. The God questions seems to be open. And even if God was proven to exist this would not guaranty The Deity would have all the attributes attributed to God in western thought or the Bible.
All I need for my time machine is a cylinder of infinite length.
Does any one know where I could get one?

[Curious]

All I need for my time machine is a cylinder of infinite length.
Does any one know where I could get one?

Yes, I have one attached to my hoover.Unfortunately it is not infinite in this realm but if this nothing had at some point existed, the only base system would be base zero and so any cylinder of length NOT zero would be infinite. Would you like to buy it on the off chance?

[Curious]

Well, logic is the rules, or at least part of them. The question becomes though, what would the rules be if there were no universe of stuff? The rules would still exist if there is at least one logical fact. In the case of a world without stuff, there's still a logical structure existing.

If there is a logical structure even if the world is without stuff, then all logical statements are still self-consistent, and therefore true. But, notice, this is a semantic concept, so it is semantic concepts that exist. If semantic concepts exist, then as a converse so does the mind that comprehends those concepts.

It seems to me that what you are describing would be a form of presumptive logic that exists independently and prior to any set of rules. You seem to be asserting that the logical fact brings forth the rules rather than the rules determining the logic. Even your own logic follows the rules of logic (I say this in the broadest possible sense). If the rules were different then the logic would be different. The mind that comprehends the logic comprehends it according to it's own set of rules which it uses to verify the logic. If there were no pre-existing rules of logic then this logic would not be logic at all.
BTW I think we are going off at a bit of a tangent here.

[harvey1]

I don't know if you can say that one precedes the other. If we look at it in a certain way, we can say, the universe behaves like an L universe because L is true. However, it would be equally valid to say that because this is an L universe, L is true.

Which universe are you referring to when saying "L universe"? If you say the universe as it is now, then surely it is not the same "L universe" as the one immediately prior to inflation (or the universes that may indeed exist outside of our own).

In addition, you've just actually added to the mystery, not reduced the current mystery. The first mystery is why is there a universe. We tried to answer that by suggesting the existence of L. What you in effect are doing is saying that there's now L and the world and they are both mysterious.

That is, you can't separate the logic from the condition. It all comes down to how you ask the question...

The ultimate condition I suggest is no spacetime, or matter fields. This is the "condition" that L must ultimately refer to if we are to avoid the silly conception that we are lucky that our universe was not nothing, 1D, 2D, etc.. That is, there's "nothing," and because there's something wrong with nothing we have something.

If you ask Why L is true, you are essentially making a value judgment about L that is already separate from the universe in which L is true. Asking Why is this an L universe? is essentially the same question and goes to "instantiation" cosmology, where instruments that are accurate enough to let us know what actually happened at that moment have yet to be made.

That's fine, however this does not show that L can exist as a cause to the universe and God can still not exist. If you just want to tie L with the universe and leave it as one big mystery, you can do that, but you are following the same approach as QED by citing it as all very lucky that the universe wasn't nothing or wasn't 1D, etc..

I don't think that by using the word "satisfy", you can pun it into making it true for the purposes of defining intelligence. The term "satisfy," as you are using it in the first instance is a mathematical term. 44 satisfies the equation X=4*11. It's just a term of description for a mechanistic operation. It is not a semantic device, but a syntactic one.

I disagree. Mathematics is not fully defined. If it were a definable enterprise, then computers could do math. That is, we could program a computer to follow the clear cut instructions on how to compute how an equation is satisfied, and let it continue to compute more and more complex equations. This doesn't happen, of course. The reason is that a computer is not intelligent. Perhaps a computer can be programmed to do math, but it would need algorithms that our conscious minds use to understand the meaning of equations and terms. However, if a computer had the ability to use such algorithms, it would be intelligent.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be presenting this issue as a problem that the universe had to solve at one point in order for it to exist (i.e, The condition is 4*11, now what can I put there to make it make sense?) If so, it's not necessary to view it this way. If not, well, you can ignore the paragraph also.

It's not something to "solve" in a temporal sense. It is something that has the problem and solution just "existing." The solution is God's action in the world. It takes a conscious mind, such as God's mind, to instantiate the world from the math (i.e., God's mind).

I still can't go with you saying that logic requires intelligence. Maybe I lack the required background in information theory or something? Do you have a good link for this?

I think the best way to approach this topic is by using Tarski's conception of satisfaction:

“...the word ‘true’ ...expresses a property of ...of sentences. However, it is easily seen that all the formulations which were given earlier and aimed to explain the meaning of this word ...referred not only to sentences themselves, but also to objects ‘talked about’ by these sentences, or possibly to ‘states of affairs’ described by them. And, moreover, it turns out that the simplest and the most natural way of obtaining an exact definition of truth is one which involves the use of other semantic notions, e.g. the notion of satisfaction. It is for these reasons that we count the concept of truth which is discussed here among the concepts of semantics, and the problem of defining truth proves to be closely related to the more general problem of setting up the foundations of theoretical semantics.”

If the universe exists because L is true, then L must express a semantic property, not just syntactic property. In other words, Tarski's approach should be extended to a much more primitive cosmology in attempt to answer the most basic of all questions, why is there something versus nothing. This approach requires language as among the most primitive concepts (i.e., more primitive than spacetime or matter), and language requires the existence of Mind. In other words, God exists.

[Curious]

The ultimate condition I suggest is no spacetime, or matter fields. This is the "condition" that L must ultimately refer to if we are to avoid the silly conception that we are lucky that our universe was not nothing, 1D, 2D, etc.. That is, there's "nothing," and because there's something wrong with nothing we have something.

As I have previously said, this is not the only alternative to your version. I would be interested to hear which part of my particular conception you find silly or so utterly devoid of reason that you choose to ignore or discount it.

That's fine, however this does not show that L can exist as a cause to the universe and God can still not exist. If you just want to tie L with the universe and leave it as one big mystery, you can do that, but you are following the same approach as QED by citing it as all very lucky that the universe wasn't nothing or wasn't 1D, etc..

This is a little unfair to QED. I have read his posts on the subject and it is you who claim it is lucky, while QED seems almost to be of the opinion that it could be inevitable.

It's not something to "solve" in a temporal sense. It is something that has the problem and solution just "existing." The solution is God's action in the world. It takes a conscious mind, such as God's mind, to instantiate the world from the math (i.e., God's mind).

This may just be me being dense but Why???

If the universe exists because L is true, then L must express a semantic property, not just syntactic property. In other words, Tarski's approach should be extended to a much more primitive cosmology in attempt to answer the most basic of all questions, why is there something versus nothing. This approach requires language as among the most primitive concepts (i.e., more primitive than spacetime or matter), and language requires the existence of Mind. In other words, God exists.

Language requires disunity, that is, language requires incompletion or an inequality of information in which language is needed for the purpose of dissemination. How could language exist without the speaker and the listener being separate entities?

[harvey1]

As I have previously said, this is not the only alternative to your version. I would be interested to hear which part of my particular conception you find silly or so utterly devoid of reason that you choose to ignore or discount it.

Your conception is overly complex, that's why I discount it.

This is a little unfair to QED. I have read his posts on the subject and it is you who claim it is lucky, while QED seems almost to be of the opinion that it could be inevitable.

He has not taken a position on how inevitable it was. He simply doesn't wish to take a position, although he hasn't answered why there had to be a spacetime or a simple spacetime.

It's not something to "solve" in a temporal sense. It is something that has the problem and solution just "existing." The solution is God's action in the world. It takes a conscious mind, such as God's mind, to instantiate the world from the math (i.e., God's mind).

This may just be me being dense but Why???

L is a language, and as such, it must be understood to be "visualized." That is, the interpretation of L is a new structure, that structure being the phenomenal realization of L. The interpreter is God.

Language requires disunity, that is, language requires incompletion or an inequality of information in which language is required for the purpose of dissemination. How could language exist without the speaker and the listener being separate entities?

I'm not sure what your question is. Can you re-word it?

[ST88]

ST88 wrote:
If you can assert that logic is required for the universe to exist and your definition of logic requires comprehension by the mind, I don't see how you can avoid a supreme intelligence. However, logic is independent of consciousness. Your assertion that "logic" is gibberish without a conscious mind is utter nonsense. Logic exists whether we notice it or not in the same way that mathematics is something that we discover and not invent. The "logic" you speak of that must exist if the universe exists is encapsulated entirely within the mechanics of physics. No one would assert that a conscious mind that understands physics is required for physics to exist.

I was under the impression that Mathematics as well as Logic were human constructs not something discovered. Although we can discover correlations between reality and these constructs it is due to the development and refinement of Math and logic. But that there was not one to one correspondence. They even have theorems to prove it. The God questions seems to be open. And even if God was proven to exist this would not guaranty The Deity would have all the attributes attributed to God in western thought or the Bible.

Correction here, the language of mathematics and logic are human constructs. Mathematics itself is not a human construct, but its expressions can used as constructs to measure and describe objects and effects. We can say, for example, that the diameter of the earth is 8,000 miles, then do all sorts of calculations on that to find other measurements. But even though the idea of a "mile" is a human construct, the actual length, the referent, that the phrase "8,000 miles" points to is the same as the objective diameter of the earth. We can test this by using a different measuring system, kilometers, and see if we get the same result by comparing km to mi.

[Curious]

Your conception is overly complex, that's why I discount it.

I thought it was simplicity itself. It also contradicts nothing that is known in science. It also makes sense and if you find any faults in the reasoning I would be grateful if you would explain my error.

Language requires disunity, that is, language requires incompletion or an inequality of information in which language is required for the purpose of dissemination. How could language exist without the speaker and the listener being separate entities?

I'm not sure what your question is. Can you re-word it?

ok. Since language is the means by which information is passed from "speaker" to "listener", how or why would language exist if there was no separation which would require a language to exist.
If all that existed was the mind of God and God is Unity then language would be redundant if his Unity was omnipresent and perfect.
If Information is not equally present in all parts of the mind and the mind requires a language to pass this information from one part to the other this would suggest that God is mutable and asymmetrical, having fluctuations in what is present here or there at any given time.
Without time how would the language allow passage of information from areas of high density to low density?
If language was present then if it is not needed by God to communicate with himself it must be needed to communicate with a separate entity or entities which leads to language not really predating existence.