tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3690365956618918207.post6116605913222009720..comments2022-03-27T06:28:11.641-07:00Comments on Big Thick Glasses: Some Philosophical MusingsTomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13356460399015222744noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3690365956618918207.post-35219355371077551512016-10-10T19:01:30.955-07:002016-10-10T19:01:30.955-07:00Hi. In regard to "Why is there something rat... Hi. In regard to "Why is there something rather than nothing?", my proposed solution is that what we usually think of as "nothing" (the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws of physics/math/logic, and all minds that would consider this supposed lack of all) is not really the lack of all existent entities. There must be something that can't be gotten rid of. Because we got rid of all the things we can think of (matter, energy, space, time, laws of physics, minds), the one thing left is the "nothing" itself. That is, "nothing" must itself be an existent entity. An argument supporting this is:<br /><br />Two choices for answering the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" are:<br /><br />A. "Something” has always been here.<br /><br />B. "Something” has not always been here.<br /><br />Choice A is possible but doesn't explain anything. If we go with choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it (by "before", I don't mean "before" as in time, but "before" as in a perceived transformation from "nothing" to "something"). If this supposed "nothing” were truly the lack of all existent entities, though, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice then is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not the lack of all existent entities, or absolute "nothing". There must have been some existent entity, or "something", present. Because we got rid of all the existent entities we could think of, the only thing that could be an existent entity would be the supposed "nothing" itself. That is, it must in fact be a "something". This is logically required if we go with choice B, and I don't think there's a way around that. What this means is that the situation we visualize as being the lack of all existent entities, or "nothing" is not the true lack of all existent entities and is, in fact, a "something". This also means that it's not possible to have the true lack of all existent entities because even the resultant "nothing" is a "something". In philosophy language, this means that "something" is necessary, or non-contingent. <br /><br /> Said another way: Let's say that you start with "nothing", which you kind of have to do if you want a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Also, let's accept "From nothing, nothing comes" as correct. The only way out of this is to say that the supposed "nothing" we're thinking of cannot be the lack of all existent entities, or "somethings". It, itself, must be an existent entity.<br /><br /> That's my two cents. For how "nothing" can be a "something", I think it's important to first understand how any "normal" thing like a book or a car exists. If you're interested, I've got more on this at my website at<br /><br />https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/<br /><br /> Thanks for listening.<br /><br />Roger <br /><br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17568478256775540119noreply@blogger.com