0x0=1, Redux.

[lawtonfogle]

If nothing begets nothing, do we not have some primitive form of time?

Anyways, nothing can only beget (without any sense of time) if there is causality, when there is no causality, then cannot nothing beget something?

 

[The Nihilist]

May I propose the alternative solution that you expand your ignore list

 

[Washington]

If nothing begets nothing, do we not have some primitive form of time?

Anyways, nothing can only beget (without any sense of time) if there is causality, when there is no causality, then cannot nothing beget something?

You're mistaking a cliché for a principle.

 

[MaxP]

My flawed logic-o-meter is tingling. You really should not mistake something for nothing.

If there is not time, there is no progression unless acted upon by an outside force. There is not time in nothing. Nothing to nothing is not progression, and requires no time to facilitate the lack of any cause. Nothing has no continuance since it does not exist. And thus no need for time.
Nothing does beget nothing; there is no causality because nothing is caused. Nothing to nothing is the lack of cause and of result.

 

[tcampen]

If nothing begets nothing, do we not have some primitive form of time?

Anyways, nothing can only beget (without any sense of time) if there is causality, when there is no causality, then cannot nothing beget something?

But how do you know that without relying completely on inductive reasoning? And if inductive reasoning alone is enough, doesn't that propose some serious problems for the theist? (If you remain intellectually honest, that is.)

 

[Zaac]

If nothing begets nothing, do we not have some primitive form of time?

Anyways, nothing can only beget (without any sense of time) if there is causality, when there is no causality, then cannot nothing beget something?

Can we get all philosophy classes banned?

 

[Matthewj1985]

Can we get all philosophy classes banned?

I was actually wondering what the last great discovery made by philosophers was.

 

[The Nihilist]

I was actually wondering what the last great discovery made by philosophers was.

The ability to grant immortality and turn lead into gold?
But from a practical standpoint, most contemporary fields of inquiry are direct descendants of philosophy.

 

[bob135]

I was actually wondering what the last great discovery made by philosophers was.

Science used to be "Natural Philosophy."

If nothing begets nothing, do we not have some primitive form of time?

Anyways, nothing can only beget (without any sense of time) if there is causality, when there is no causality, then cannot nothing beget something?

I'm pretty sure you need to have matter before you have time or before time even makes any sense.

 

[Wyzaard]

My flawed logic-o-meter is tingling. You really should not mistake something for nothing.

You've already made nothing into something by way of your use of it as a conceptual object.

But then... is it really 'nothing' anymore? How silly it seems.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If nothing begets nothing, do we not have some primitive form of time?

Err...

Anyways, nothing can only beget (without any sense of time) if there is causality, when there is no causality, then cannot nothing beget something?

Causality is only established if 'nothing' is considered a 'thing' in its own right. By definition, it is not. Thus, 'something from nothing' does not require causality and, hence, time.

 

[Arkanin]

Can something come out of nothing? Does ordered existence emerge from a completely disordered nonexistence of rules? Is nonexistence a non-concept? Is "nothingess" just a vacuum, as we like to think of it, and nothing ever comes of it?

We don't know, we're monkeys! We're dealing with concepts that are so completely inapplicable to the layer of existence we take for granted that any notion that we are equipped with the tools to approach such a problem at all is completely absurd! Get out while you still can!!!

But really, it is rather absurd that people think they can even begin to approach these kinds of questions with logic, when we do not actually know to what existent or how logic should apply to anything that might exist outside our universe. I just wouldn't bother; it's a question that's completely and totally impossible for any human to approach, no matter how intelligent they are.

 

[MaxP]

You've already made nothing into something by way of your use of it as a conceptual object.

But then... is it really 'nothing' anymore? How silly it seems.

Semantics! So great!

A concept is not a thing. When we say a thing is not present, the lack of presence does not imply we are assuming the thing is present.

 

[MaxP]

Can something come out of nothing? Does ordered existence emerge from a completely disordered nonexistence of rules? Is nonexistence a non-concept? Is "nothingess" just a vacuum, as we like to think of it, and nothing ever comes of it?

We don't know, we're monkeys! We're dealing with concepts that are so completely inapplicable to the layer of existence we take for granted that any notion that we are equipped with the tools to approach such a problem at all is completely absurd! Get out while you still can!!!

But really, it is rather absurd that people think they can even begin to approach these kinds of questions with logic, when we do not actually know to what existent or how logic should apply to anything that might exist outside our universe. I just wouldn't bother; it's a question that's completely and totally impossible for any human to approach, no matter how intelligent they are.

We probably shouldn't attempt any kind of inquiry then.

 

[Garyzenuf]

But really, it is rather absurd that people think they can even begin to approach these kinds of questions with logic, when we do not actually know to what existent or how logic should apply to anything that might exist outside our universe. I just wouldn't bother; it's a question that's completely and totally impossible for any human to approach, no matter how intelligent they are.

That sounds like giving up kind of early in the ole' ball-game Arkanin, we've only been discussing Origins for a few thousand years, give us a chance.



Anyway, how do you stop people from imagining?

*

 

[lawtonfogle]

I was actually wondering what the last great discovery made by philosophers was.

Well, let me check science daily...



Back.

Seems the most recent one is that high caffeine intake makes one more prone to hallucinate.

Ok, so maybe you would want to distinguish between philosophers and scientist, but as a Computer Scientist, I can tell you some of the stuff I do right now is on the realm where math, philosophy, and computation all hold hands.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Science used to be "Natural Philosophy."



I'm pretty sure you need to have matter before you have time or before time even makes any sense.

I would have to disagree. Maybe one would need energy, but that energy would not need to be in the form of matter.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

But how do you know that without relying completely on inductive reasoning? And if inductive reasoning alone is enough, doesn't that propose some serious problems for the theist? (If you remain intellectually honest, that is.)

It makes the theist the rational thinker reasoning well with a healthy mind in a fluid environment of logic and the anti-theist the emotional knee-jerk reactionary, because bad things happen to nice folks.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Semantics! So great!

A concept is not a thing. When we say a thing is not present, the lack of presence does not imply we are assuming the thing is present.

"Nothing" is what rocks dream of..

NOTHING