Start with Nothing

[Arra]

I was talking with someone today (who shall remain anonymous) when I stumbled upon a realisation. It's really simple, and quite obvious, now that I think about it. So I hope I don't end up looking like an idiot. It's also kind of hard to articulate, and it's easy to lose the thought. While contemplating the initial reason for things, one must start with nothing. This is because, if you start with something, and that something has no cause for its existence, then that something is completely arbitrary. It could have not existed. The essence of everything is still nothingness, the thing that exists still sprung from nothingness. There are no 'laws of the universe' indicating that something is required to exist, because those laws would be something and so they cannot be the first thing. One does not need any scientific knowledge to think about this. In fact, if you're using scientific knowledge to think about it, you're doing it wrong. You're trying to figure out why those scientific facts about the universe exist in the first place. You have to start with nothing. So here's what I've concluded. Since you have to start with nothing, and only nothing comes from nothing, anything that does exist came about arbitrarily. I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary. EDIT: 1) Something exists. 2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason). 3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness. ------ 4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead. ------ 5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.

[Wayfaerer]

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed?

[Original Poster]

Nothing is, unfortunately, neither something nor nothing. The word nothing falsely conveys what nothing is. Nothing renders concepts like void and space obsolete. In nothing, infinite space exists and infinite creation within that space.

[Arra]

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed? What do you mean? I don't understand. Using 'always' might be a bad idea since it implies the existence of time, which is something. Nothing is, unfortunately, neither something nor nothing. The word nothing falsely conveys what nothing is. Nothing renders concepts like void and space obsolete. In nothing, infinite space exists and infinite creation within that space. Why are you assuming that nothingness includes space? It doesn't.

[Wayfaerer]

'always' as in timelessly lol

[Photolysis]

I think that when you try making justifications like this that it's completely pointless. As far as I'm concerned that whether the universe always existed, or somehow came into being, it's bloody strange. Besides, I could completely invert your logic by stating "if there was no universe at all and nothing existed then even nothingness would not exist, therefore something must exist". I do not see valid justification for your first premise. Tangent: I find it really hard to mentally get to grips with the idea that the universe itself not existing at all. It's easy to imagine myself not existing for instance, or a bunch of empty space, but when you imagine that space and time don't exist, and nothing would ever happen ever then that's when things get very weird to me.

[Arra]

Besides, I could completely invert your logic by stating "if there was no universe at all and nothing existed then even nothingness would not exist, therefore something must exist". I do not see valid justification for your first premise If nothing existed, then there would be nothing. Nothing isn't part of something, so nothing wouldn't not exist.

[tommo]

when you imagine that space and time don't exist, and nothing would ever happen ever then that's when things get very weird to me. That's the entire point right there. You literally cannot have nothing and then something come out of it. What would cause something to come out of nothing? Something would have to. I think you're (Dianeva) getting confused with laws and how they exist. They only exist in the mind. Maybe not, but that's just something I got from the OP. "I mean, everything that exists right now might have a cause, and that might have a cause, and that might have a cause, but eventually you arrive at something which just exists for no particular reason and has no cause. Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary." How? How can you have arbitrary or non-arbitrary from nothing?

[Arra]

I'm not talking about time - nothing existing one moment, then something existing the next. I'm talking about whatever exists, in the beginning. Another way of thinking about what I'm saying is, to try to consider the first cause of everything. Eventually something has to have caused everything that exists. And what caused that cause? Nothing, by definition. So whatever it is, it exists or existed arbitrarily. And I'm drunk so fuck you.

[Photolysis]

If nothing existed, then there would be nothing. Nothing isn't part of something, so nothing wouldn't not exist. Except you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Nothingness is the state of non-existence, but that itself requires a certain set of conditions. Just like you cannot have empty space without the existence of space itself. If there is no universe, then there cannot be a state of nothingness. Even the concept of nothingness and existence cannot exist.

[Arra]

I honestly don't see why it can't. I don't see the problem with nothingness being the state of things.

[Photolysis]

Without a universe, states do not exist.

[Arra]

Right, no states, nothing. EDIT: You can call nothingness a state, but it really isn't. When I say nothing, I just mean nothing.

[JesterKK]

The OP is a little confused - some contradictions here and there. Basically there is no 'pre-existence'. Existence is eternal and it must be eternal because it includes time. There is no before time nor after time because before and after implicate the presence of time. So there literally is no nothingness. We don't just have to use the argument from time. It's more obvious if you argue from space (space and time are both measures of existence). There is no 'outside of existence'. No before, no after, no outside - existence is eternal and all-encompassing. Your childhood premise to start with nothing is mistaken. Well, it just doesn't make sense.

[Arch]

Let's sit back and wait for some proof eh? There's many possibilities at the moment, I'm sure someone will find out which is right.

[JesterKK]

Proof of nothing? Are you serious?

[stormcrow]

I think the moral of this thread is not to mistake the limits of our imaginations for a metaphysical necessity. Causality is how we organize our experiences into a coherent whole, it is the very structure or form of these experiences. Saying "everything I experience has a cause" is one thing but to say that "therefore everything has a cause" is wading into the swamp of speculation. One does not need any scientific knowledge to think about this. In fact, if you're using scientific knowledge to think about it, you're doing it wrong. You're trying to figure out why those scientific facts about the universe exist in the first place. You have to start with nothing. To be honest we should beware of using our intuitions as a starting point (for this particular argument) as well as deriving vague conclusions from vague premises. In conclusion, we really just don't know (about the origins of the universe) but I think it would be beneficial to weigh the "evidence" derived from our intuitions against the evidence derived from the scientific method. Our intuitions have a long, hilarious history of being erroneous which is not to say that they are necessarily always wrong, but that we should tread carefully when we speculate about events beyond our experience. Kant said it better than me: “Hence he inferred, that reason was altogether deluded with reference to this concept (causation), which she erroneously considered as one of her children, whereas in reality it was nothing but the bastard of imagination, impregnated by experience, which subsumed certain representations under the Law of Association, and mistook the subjective necessity of habit for an objective necessity arising from insight.” Of course it is possible that I don't quite understand what you are getting at, if I misrepresented you position please correct me. Like Omis said using the word nothing is misleading, like I said we should tread carefully through this conversation, maybe starting by defining "nothing"? If we cannot come to a satisfactory definition of the terms we are throwing around we should beware of the conclusions drawn from them.

[Darkmatters]

Another important factor that should be properly defined is time. Different people use different definitions of it. To some time is an arrow always moving in one direction along a timeline. To others it's simply a measurement of increments of movement between objects. If nothing exists, and therefore there can be nothing moving to measure and no observer to make that measurement, then how could time be said to exist in any meaningful way?

[Arra]

(I've edited the OP, but if you've already read it you don't need to again. I just deleted a couple unnecessary paragraphs and added the deductive argument found at the bottom of this post.) Basically there is no 'pre-existence'. Existence is eternal and it must be eternal because it includes time. There is no before time nor after time because before and after implicate the presence of time. So there literally is no nothingness. There is no assumption that time had something before it. If I used the word 'before', what I meant was the cause. The cause and effect might happen simultaneously. The effect might even be eternal. That doesn't defeat my argument. The OP is a little confused - some contradictions here and there. If there are more, please point them out. I'll put the portion I'm adding now in blue text: Causality is how we organize our experiences into a coherent whole, it is the very structure or form of these experiences. Saying "everything I experience has a cause" is one thing but to say that "therefore everything has a cause" is wading into the swamp of speculation. My argument doesn't assume that everything has to have a cause. To be honest we should beware of using our intuitions as a starting point (for this particular argument) as well as deriving vague conclusions from vague premises. In conclusion, we really just don't know (about the origins of the universe) but I think it would be beneficial to weigh the "evidence" derived from our intuitions against the evidence derived from the scientific method. Our intuitions have a long, hilarious history of being erroneous which is not to say that they are necessarily always wrong, but that we should tread carefully when we speculate about events beyond our experience. I agree for many cases, but logic itself is applicable everywhere. These issues can be reasoned about, as long as one does not rely on knowledge about the universe gained through experience. If nothing exists, and therefore there can be nothing moving to measure and no observer to make that measurement, then how could time be said to exist in any meaningful way? I don't know why the absence of an observer to measure the nothingness would cause it to be impossible. I think the mistake many people are making is assuming that nothingness still involves something, somehow. I suppose because there's a word used to describe it, and actual nothingness is difficult to imagine. When I say nothing, I mean the absence of anything. I apologise that the OP was confusing. What I'm trying to say is true, I think. The reasoning is pretty solid. I suspect I haven't explained it correctly. I define nothingness to be literally nothing. No space nor time. The absence of other things. Here's the argument in deductive form. 1) Something exists. 2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason). 3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness. ------ 4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead. ------ 5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily.

[Darkmatters]

There is no assumption that time had something before it. Oh, well in that case, I think my whole post is pretty irrelevant! *Insert derpface here* I don't know why the absence of an observer to measure the nothingness would cause it to be impossible. Ok, forget the observer thing. I get another derpface for that one. I'm just basically asking - does time have any relevance or meaning if nothing can move (because nothing exists)? This thread hurts my brain.

[tommo]

1) Something exists. 2) Anything that exists has some first cause (the reasons for its existence can be traced back until you reach something that doesn't have a reason). 3) There are no logical problems with the concept of nothingness. ------ 4) Therefore, a first cause exists for which there would be no logical problems with nothingness existing instead. ------ 5) Therefore, a first cause exists which is not logically required to exist. It exists arbitrarily. 4 and 5 are where you're going wrong. Which is basically your whole argument lol How can something (like the universe) be caused by something in a sea of nothing? This is why I said I think you're getting confused between what's in the mind and what is not in the mind. What action, when nothing, would cause the universe?

[Arra]

I was beginning to think that microwave emoticon was useless, lol. 4 is the conclusion which logically follows from the premises 1-3, and 5 follows from 4. If you agree with 1-3, then you need to explain why you don't think 4 follows. In 4, I'm basically just combining 1-3 together into a single sentence. I am not saying that the universe was caused by something in a sea of nothing. The universe, or whatever the 'first cause' is, doesn't have a cause. Are you disagreeing with premise 2?

[Wayfaerer]

This all seems to be solved if there was no first cause to the universe. Nothing only exists relative to the concept of something and vice versa, so can't they only exist together as necessary attributes of existence?

[tommo]

I was beginning to think that microwave emoticon was useless, lol. 4 is the conclusion which logically follows from the premises 1-3, and 5 follows from 4. If you agree with 1-3, then you need to explain why you don't think 4 follows. In 4, I'm basically just combining 1-3 together into a single sentence. I am not saying that the universe was caused by something in a sea of nothing. The universe, or whatever the 'first cause' is, doesn't have a cause. Are you disagreeing with premise 2? I'm disagreeing with the premise that there was nothing before there was something.

[Seroquel]

What action, when nothing, would cause the universe? It would have to be something not bound by the laws of our universe. Something that our minds cannot even comprehend..