A Philosophical Thought Experiment

[MarkG014]

I was sitting here today and had an unusual thought.

I was simply considering the possibilities, without coloring them with my personal experience. The most outlandish couple of possibilities I could come up with were ...

Possibility 1. A Universe exists.
Possibility 2. Nothing ever existed. Nothing exists. Nothing ever will exist.

Now before you jump on an interpretation of Possibility 2, let me try to clarify what I find interesting here (no I am not on drugs!). I agree with the classical statement of DesCartes, that "I think, therefore I am." So, I find it impossible to believe that possibility 2 occurred. I am certain that I am a part of something, however messed-up my understanding of the Universe may be.

Nevertheless, I find it interesting to consider that as some sort of other option, what if it had not occurred? I am finding it at least interesting to imagine it for a while.

If you find my suggestion too strange to even consider, you might like a less drastic version.

Possibility 1.5: Suppose that there is some dimension of time. Suppose that for some time, the Universe did not exist, and then at some point it came into being. It may or may not also cease to exist at some future point.

Many people believe in a God who is outside of our physical universe. But for the purpose of this mental exercise, I am defining a set, "Universe" that includes everything, including any God or Gods you are imagining when you try to picture everything in existence.

As I already said, as I personally perform this mental exercise, I find possibility 2 incompatible with my own existence, so I would claim it is not the case. But I am wondering if any fellow forum folk are willing to let themselves imagine such a state, to think on it a bit, and to just give me their reactions to the thought of it.

Thanks for sharing your reactions!

 

[Bushido216]

It's possible. It's also so far removed from any possibility of our own experience that it's pretty irrelevant.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Suppose that for some time, the Universe did not exist, and then at some point it came into being.

Did time exist? What is it? If time exists, then something exists, not nothing, even if the "universe" as we know it today did not exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[carmelsnowcone]

I'm more inclined to believe that an infinite number of universes exist, for the infinte possibilities reality can produce...now my head hurts...

 

[SithDoughnut]

Possibility 1.5 does not make sense unless you have chosen to separate time from everything else (you seem to have done that, but I'm not sure). If you include it, you're basically back at Possibility 1.

 

[Resha Caner]

Possibility 1.5: Suppose that there is some dimension of time. Suppose that for some time, the Universe did not exist, and then at some point it came into being. It may or may not also cease to exist at some future point.

You may want to read up on the arguments between monists and dualists.

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This is a dilemma that has plagued philosophy forever. For example, physicalists want to "prove" that it is possible for the physical to exist without the spiritual. But, in order to legitimately argue such a thing, they have to formalize the logic. Once they do that, they find the logic stating that if the physical exists, it's opposite must also exist. The dualist shouts, "Gotcha!" But when the dualist tries to prove that spirituality is the opposite of physicality, he fails because it turns out the logic allows more than one opposite. "Gotcha!" claims the monist, and around they go again. Then in jumps someone with a claim like that of carmel. It's not an issue of monism or dualism. It's pluralism. But that has it's issues as well.

So, one can certainly do a thought experiment about "nothing," but it never goes very far.

As for my view, I think of God as infinite and unchanging, not eternal. Further, I don't think of the creation as ex nilhio.

P.S. The beauty of Decartes' cogito ergo sum is more than an appeal to our personal desire to believe we exist. It begins with those who doubt our existence. He is saying: OK, you doubt we exist? Let's go with that. But in order to doubt existence, you must have a thought that doubt's our existence. Therefore, at the very least, that thought exists. But now we have arrived at a contradiction, therefore the premise must be false. From that, we can say: I think, therefore I am.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Tore Amos. Cornflake Girl.

this is not really happening
you bet your life it is

YouTube - Tori Amos - Cornflake Girl HDTV

 

[Brady111]

I was sitting here today and had an unusual thought.

I was simply considering the possibilities, without coloring them with my personal experience. The most outlandish couple of possibilities I could come up with were ...

Possibility 1. A Universe exists.
Possibility 2. Nothing ever existed. Nothing exists. Nothing ever will exist.

Hi Mark,

This is something that I have also pondered in the past. I kind of use a more traditional definition of "universe:" Our dimensions of time and space, matter and energy, and all that is inherent in them. I also phrase the question a bit differently, but basically the same concept: Given that something exists now (I and/or the universe), did something always exist? I think we can agree for the sake of this argument that "I" exist now and the universe exists now. So, the question becomes: did something always exist or was there a point of complete non-existence?

To make matters more interesting there are three options that come under the leg of " a point of complete non-existence":


a) Everything is an illusion, and nothing really exists.
b) Something created itself. The "something" is self-caused.
c) Something that now exists is derived, or caused, or came from nonexistence (i.e. something came from nothing).

Let's examine these three options:

Option (a) is easy to exclude as a real possibility. Option (a) says that nothing exists; that everything is an illusion. We have already determined that something exists. If something exists, then everything cannot be an illusion. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that everything is an illusion. Wouldn't something have to exist to be having an illusion? Non-existence can't have illusions, only something that exists can have an illusion. Not only that, but the something having the illusion must be a cognitive something. So this possibility is self contradictory. It is logically impossible. Scratch the first one.

Option (b) asserts that something (this something - our universe, or perhaps something else from which this universe is derived) created itself. However, in order to create itself, it would have to be prior to its own existence. In other words it would have to be before it was; it would have to be, and not be, at the same time, and in the same sense. This is a flat out violation of the law of non-contradiction. A logical contradiction forces us to reject this option.

Option (c) says that something is derived from nothing. Let's define 'Nothing.' By nothing we mean non-existence, or a complete lack of all attributes: No color, no shape, no size, no substance whatsoever, no attributes at all. If something could come from nothing, this nothing would have to at least have the attribute of being able to have something come from it. If nothing has that attribute, nothing is not 'nothing'. This is because the definition of 'nothing' is a complete lack of ALL attributes, and that which we are calling 'nothing' would have an attribute. The person who claims that something can come from nothing is equivocating on the terms. That person is using the same term in two different ways. The word 'nothing' means one thing at the beginning of the argument (it means a complete lack of all attributes), later it means something else (it means something with at least one attribute). In other words this person is cheating us with a semantic trick. But, we will not be fooled. Thus this third option fails, and with it so does the entire point.

Given our above inferences, let's see what conclusion we can draw:

1) If there ever was a point when there was nothing (no existence) and as we have already seen there would be no way to get something from nothing, then there would be nothing now.

2) There is something now.

3) Therefore, there never was a point when there was nothing (no existence).

What do you think?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hi Mark,

This is something that I have also pondered in the past. I kind of use a more traditional definition of "universe:" Our dimensions of time and space, matter and energy, and all that is inherent in them. I also phrase the question a bit differently, but basically the same concept: Given that something exists now (I and/or the universe), did something always exist? I think we can agree for the sake of this argument that "I" exist now and the universe exists now. So, the question becomes: did something always exist or was there a point of complete non-existence?

To make matters more interesting there are three options that come under the leg of " a point of complete non-existence":


a) Everything is an illusion, and nothing really exists.
b) Something created itself. The "something" is self-caused.
c) Something that now exists is derived, or caused, or came from nonexistence (i.e. something came from nothing).

Let's examine these three options:

Option (a) is easy to exclude as a real possibility. Option (a) says that nothing exists; that everything is an illusion. We have already determined that something exists. If something exists, then everything cannot be an illusion. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that everything is an illusion. Wouldn't something have to exist to be having an illusion? Non-existence can't have illusions, only something that exists can have an illusion. Not only that, but the something having the illusion must be a cognitive something. So this possibility is self contradictory. It is logically impossible. Scratch the first one.

How much time and money did I waste in those meditation classes?

Option (b) asserts that something (this something - our universe, or perhaps something else from which this universe is derived) created itself. However, in order to create itself, it would have to be prior to its own existence. In other words it would have to be before it was; it would have to be, and not be, at the same time, and in the same sense. This is a flat out violation of the law of non-contradiction. A logical contradiction forces us to reject this option.

Couldn't you use an alternative logic which does not have that law, i.e. a paraconsistent logic?

Option (c) says that something is derived from nothing. Let's define 'Nothing.' By nothing we mean non-existence, or a complete lack of all attributes: No color, no shape, no size, no substance whatsoever, no attributes at all. If something could come from nothing, this nothing would have to at least have the attribute of being able to have something come from it. If nothing has that attribute, nothing is not 'nothing'. This is because the definition of 'nothing' is a complete lack of ALL attributes, and that which we are calling 'nothing' would have an attribute. The person who claims that something can come from nothing is equivocating on the terms. That person is using the same term in two different ways. The word 'nothing' means one thing at the beginning of the argument (it means a complete lack of all attributes), later it means something else (it means something with at least one attribute). In other words this person is cheating us with a semantic trick. But, we will not be fooled. Thus this third option fails, and with it so does the entire point.

Maybe as Heidegger said "Nothing nots"?

Given our above inferences, let's see what conclusion we can draw:

1) If there ever was a point when there was nothing (no existence) and as we have already seen there would be no way to get something from nothing, then there would be nothing now.

2) There is something now.

3) Therefore, there never was a point when there was nothing (no existence).

What do you think?

Isn' it a physical impossibility to have an empty spacetime? ut doesn't classical BB theory state that time is not infinite, but "began" around 13 billion years ago?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Couldn't you use an alternative logic which does not have that law, i.e. a paraconsistent logic?

Any such "logic" would be absurd to lack some version of the law of non-contradiction. It should be rejected outright.

Then again, it gives me an opportunity to post this:

Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninety-eight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you have requested.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Brady111]

How much time and money did I waste in those meditation classes?

Most likely all of it.

Couldn't you use an alternative logic which does not have that law, i.e. a paraconsistent logic?

Just a quick question for you, which one the following are you going to give up: disjunction introduction, disjuctive syllogism, or the reductio ad absurdum? And will you be consistent when trying to determine explosive vs. non-explosive? Remember, If A and ~A are both true, the anything can be shown to be true.

Isn' it a physical impossibility to have an empty spacetime? ut doesn't classical BB theory state that time is not infinite, but "began" around 13 billion years ago?

Since space is something, if you have space, you don't have nothing. And yes the BB did happen billions of years ago, the number is always being refined; 13, 14, 15 billion, what's a couple of billion years among friends?

But, you are quite right that space and time did start at the big bang. Which introduces the question, if the universe is not always existent and uncaused, then what was it derived from that is infinite, always existent and uncaused? This is one of those things that make you go, Hmmmmmmm!

 

[Eudaimonist]

But, you are quite right that space and time did start at the big bang.

This is not known for certain. In fact, there is recent evidence to the contrary.

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

Which introduces the question, if the universe is not always existent and uncaused, then what was it derived from that is infinite, always existent and uncaused? This is one of those things that make you go, Hmmmmmmm!

Not really. If time has a start, that doesn't mean that the universe has itself not always been existent. Time starts for something, not nothing.

And "always" means for all of time, not "outside" of time, which is undefined.

Consider too that time is related to change -- time is a measure of change -- and so time only applies to existence, since nonexistence can only be changeless. So it doesn't make any sense to talk about time when one is talking about nonexistence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This is not known for certain. In fact, there is recent evidence to the contrary.

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang




eudaimonia,

Mark

Hmmmm, cyclic universe? Maybe the money spent learning meditation was not wasted after all?

Apparently Ratzinger/His Holiness has said this about Christians tempted to believe in reincarnation:

This has a particular meaning in the Hindu religion, it means a path leading to purification. Out of that context, reincarnation would be morally cruel, because endless lives would be an endless hell.

Incidentally I was reading about the "greater good" defence to the problem of evil just this morning, where charchters can be formed through suffering and experience of evil.

And Ratzinger also said this about Buddhism:

"If Buddhism is attractive, it's only because it suggests that by belonging to it you can touch the infinite, and you can have joy without concrete religious obligations. It's spiritually self-indulgent eroticism.''

Which IMO is a little unfair.

However, infinite universes would certainly make the atheists joyfully happy, as that would help answer the fine tuning argument!!!

 

[Brady111]

This is not known for certain. In fact, there is recent evidence to the contrary.

So, is your position that since there are opposing views to virtually every scientific theory, we can say nothing about any theory that has any opposition, no matter how much evidence there is for the theory, and how little evidence there is for the contrary theory?

Not really. If time has a start, that doesn't mean that the universe has itself not always been existent. Time starts for something, not nothing.

And "always" means for all of time, not "outside" of time, which is undefined.

Consider too that time is related to change -- time is a measure of change -- and so time only applies to existence, since nonexistence can only be changeless. So it doesn't make any sense to talk about time when one is talking about nonexistence.

Well, that is one theory, but there are opposing theories. I guess the best we can do is simply brush it off the table and say is, "This is not known for certain."

By the way, what inductive theory is known for certain? Just curious.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, is your position that since there are opposing views to virtually every scientific theory, we can say nothing about any theory that has any opposition, no matter how much evidence there is for the theory, and how little evidence there is for the contrary theory?

No, that is not even close to my position. I'm not quite certain how you read that into what I had written.

I guess the best we can do is simply brush it off the table and say is, "This is not known for certain."

I don't see why we should have to do this.

In any case, I was simply presenting a philosophical objection to the idea that the question you had mentioned must be introduced, because time may carry different implications than what you think.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[UnReAL13]

What if the reality as we know it is only a dream or simulation, thus making Nihilism correct? Nothing may be real, except for our thoughts. What is a thought? Obviously energy. Energy behaves in strange ways on the quantum level, breaking all other standard laws of physics. Maybe all that reality ever manifested itself as was energy through various string vibrations.

Let's take it even further though. Tachyons are theoretical FTL particles (Faster Than Light). They travel faster than the speed of light so they're received before they're transmitted, implying some sort of backward motion through the arrow of time. So what if time doesn't actually exist, but it is only a tool of our own perception? Maybe everything that exists now has always existed, and always will exist through some form or another. Or this could all be an elaborate lucid dream designed to trap the energy of our own very thoughts. Certainly an intriguing concept to embark upon, I love this right-brain abstract contemplation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What if the reality as we know it is only a dream or simulation, thus making Nihilism correct?

If by nihilism you mean "nothing really matters" then if you have any savings, then please send the to me . I will not spend them, but keep them for you till you reach philosophical maturity .

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is a thought? Obviously energy.

Obviously? If it is obvious to you what thought is, go get your Nobel Prize!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[UnReAL13]

Obviously? If it is obvious to you what thought is, go get your Nobel Prize!


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your thoughts are carried on the electrical impulses called 'synapses' in between the billions of neurons bundled in your brain. I thought this actually was pretty obvious... when I studied it in high school

 

[RETS]

Possibility 1. A Universe exists.
Possibility 2. Nothing ever existed. Nothing exists. Nothing ever will exist.

If nonexistence is a state of being, whereas that same state of being is in and of itself the very state in which we find ourselves, then it is entirely possible for nothing to have existed, exist or ever exist. That is unless the very act of thinking makes void nonexistence, in which case Possibility 1 is proven.