can nonexistence exist?

[GrowingSmaller]

If nonexistence, or nothingness, is the complete lack of all existence, then isn't it impossible for it to exist? Because, if it existed, there would be something existing, and therefore there would not "be" nonexistence/nothingness.

If thet is true, and a nonexistence is impossible, then something must exist out of necessity. So, when we wake up to find ourselves in a world, and see clouds, cars and sheep, we ought not be totally suprised after all.

So, the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre could have been wrong when he wrote:

"Everything is gratuitous, this garden, this city and myself. When you suddenly realize it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift...that's nausea."

 

[Eudaimonist]

If nonexistence, or nothingness, is the complete lack of all existence, then isn't it impossible for it to exist? Because, if it existed, there would be something existing, and therefore there would not "be" nonexistence/nothingness.

I think that there is a big difference between nothing existing, and nonexistence existing.

If there is no realm of existence, which is to say that there are no examples of entities, then it isn't true that nonexistence exists in a positive way. Nothing would exist in a positive way, since there are no entities. Nonexistence wouldn't be an entity. You may refer to nonexistence in language, but this is just an abstraction, not an entity.

Based on this logic alone, there's no reason to suppose that it is impossible for there to be no examples of entities -- for there to be no space, time, galaxies, planets, etc.

However, we might ask, just what does it mean for non-existence to be possible? Since existence can't have a cause outside of itself, because that cause would have to exist and therefore be part of existence, just what does it mean to say that it might be possible for existence not to exist? Since existence itself isn't tied to a cause, and is therefore uncaused, what would this possibility be rooted in? Perhaps existence is inevitable because it is uncaused.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If there is no realm of existence, which is to say that there are no examples of entities, then it isn't true that nonexistence exists in a positive way.

Which is why I would agrue that nonexistence 'exists' in a negative way, ie it cannot exist.

Nothing would exist in a positive way, since there are no entities. Nonexistence wouldn't be an entity. You may refer to nonexistence in language, but this is just an abstraction, not an entity.


Based on this logic alone, there's no reason to suppose that it is impossible for there to be no examples of entities -- for there to be no space, time, galaxies, planets, etc.

Can we have that argument as syllogism(s), please.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Every thing in Creation has a substance, the 'nothingness' has the substance of God, even a speck of the essence of God, for Barbelo/The Holy Spirit indwells the substance.

God is nothingness? Therefore he has no properties. Therefore he cannot be "anything" or act in any way.

Checkout the below (Prophecy....dot....org)

No, please, your views please. Unless you are going about your day job?


1998. Prophecy given to Raymond Aguilera on 14 July 2010 at 7 PM


Lately I have been thinking a lot about death because my granddaughter’s grandmother died a week or so ago, and she was about my age.


So during prayer I asked the Lord, “Where do people go when they die?”


To my surprise the Lord answered, “In My Pocket.”


“What do you mean ‘into your Pocket’?” I said. “Is this Jehovah, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit?”


The Lord said, “Yes, it is I; Everything that Was, Is and Will Be - I Am. Everything that was, is and will be - and dies - goes into My Pocket, for safekeeping. Have you ever heard of the term, ‘Energy cannot be created or destroyed’?”


“Yes!” I said.


“Well, that is because it is in My Pocket!”


I was left speechless, and our communication stopped there. (over) [/quote]

 

[Eudaimonist]

Which is why I would agrue that nonexistence 'exists' in a negative way, ie it cannot exist.

Nonexistence doesn't have to exist in and of itself. All that has to be true is that no existing things exist. What is left over when all entities are taken away is what we call "nothingness". Saying that nothingness cannot exist doesn't mean that there can't be nothing in existence.

Let me put it another way. Saying that something does not exist doesn't mean that it cannot exist. The important thing to remember here is that "nothingness" doesn't refer to a thing at all. It's an artifact of language.

Can we have that argument as syllogism(s), please.

I'm not used to rewriting my reasoning as formal syllogisms, but it's a good exercise, so here goes:

For it to be possible for something existing not to exist, its existence must be dependent on a cause.

If something existing can have no cause, then it is not possible for it to fail to exist.

Existence has no cause (since any cause would have to exist).

Therefore, existence cannot fail to exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm not used to rewriting my reasoning as formal syllogisms, but it's a good exercise, so here goes:

Ty for the effort.

Please let me put P1, P2, P3 and C into your post in bold.

P1 For it to be possible for something existing not to exist, its existence must be dependent on a cause.

P2 If something existing can have no cause, then it is not possible for it to fail to exist.

P3 Existence has no cause (since any cause would have to exist).

C Therefore, existence cannot fail to exist.

I think that P1 states material equivalence ie, "it is possible that x might not exist if and only if it has a cause". From this we can imply "if x does not have a cause, then it is not possible that is might not exist" (P2).

Since existence has no cause (P3), then (C) it cannot fail to exist (see P1, P2, P3).

I think that the argument is valid, and it all depends on P1 and P3. I accept P3 (because a cause cannot dwell outside of the universe, as all things, causes included, are part of the universe). I am not sure about P1 though, which if I have it right is interpreted as the statement of material equivalence above. So, what is the argument for the statement "it is possible that x might not exist if and only if it has a cause"? What if the cause of x is a necessary being, and that being is sufficient condition for x?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, what is the argument for the statement "it is possible that x might not exist if and only if it has a cause"?

Let's start with an example. What explains your existence as a human individual? Answer: your parents do. Because you were caused by your parents to exist, you are able to exist. If your parents had never met, you wouldn't exist.

This is why I am able to claim that it is possible for you not to have existed. Since your existence is contingent on some state of affairs -- some cause -- there is an alternative. That alternative is that either you came into existence, or (hypothetically) you had never come into existence. The presence or absence of that state of affairs -- that cause -- is what creates the alternative.

If the existence of something is not dependent on a state of affairs -- a cause -- then there is no alternative. How could there be one? There is nothing to create that alternative. If existence is uncaused, there is nothing to explain how the universe could either exist or fail to exist. There is no alternative.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

YouTube - Billy Preston - Nothing From Nothing

 

[bricklayer]

Any attempt to explicitly deny existence implicitly affirms it.

 

[The Nihilist]

If nonexistence, or nothingness, is the complete lack of all existence, then isn't it impossible for it to exist? Because, if it existed, there would be something existing, and therefore there would not "be" nonexistence/nothingness.

If thet is true, and a nonexistence is impossible, then something must exist out of necessity. So, when we wake up to find ourselves in a world, and see clouds, cars and sheep, we ought not be totally suprised after all.

So, the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre could have been wrong when he wrote:

You're playing a word game. The question you're actually asking is whether it's conceivable for it not to be the case that things exist. This is clearly conceivable. Using a word to describe such a state does not change that.

 

[quatona]

If nonexistence, or nothingness, is the complete lack of all existence, then isn't it impossible for it to exist? Because, if it existed, there would be something existing, and therefore there would not "be" nonexistence/nothingness.

Can redness be red?
Can non-redness be red?
Can redness be not red?
Can redness exist?
Can non-redness exist?

Does speed exist?
Is speed fast?

Does existence exist?
Does the existence of existence exist?
Does the existence of existence of existence exist?
....

Can non-existence exist?
If it can´t exist, does the non-existence of non-existence exist?

Do category errors exist?
Do equivocations exist?
Can we handle concepts as if they were objects?
Is it useful to form a nominalize a verb or an adjective and pretend it must still make sense - not being a descriptor of something, but something itself?

What exists in the mirror if nobody looks into it?

Can sentences or questions - although grammatically properly formed - be meaningless?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Precisely, quatona. These are language games.

Since we have a naturism topic going, I can play language games too.

If I say that I am not wearing any clothes, then no clothes exist to cover my body. However, nonexisting clothes cannot exist. Therefore, I must be wearing clothes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Glass*Soul]

God is nothingness? Therefore he has no properties. Therefore he cannot be "anything" or act in any way.

No, please, your views please. Unless you are going about your day job?


1998. Prophecy given to Raymond Aguilera on 14 July 2010 at 7 PM


Lately I have been thinking a lot about death because my granddaughter’s grandmother died a week or so ago, and she was about my age.


So during prayer I asked the Lord, “Where do people go when they die?”


To my surprise the Lord answered, “In My Pocket.”


“What do you mean ‘into your Pocket’?” I said. “Is this Jehovah, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit?”


The Lord said, “Yes, it is I; Everything that Was, Is and Will Be - I Am. Everything that was, is and will be - and dies - goes into My Pocket, for safekeeping. Have you ever heard of the term, ‘Energy cannot be created or destroyed’?”


“Yes!” I said.


“Well, that is because it is in My Pocket!”


I was left speechless, and our communication stopped there. (over)

May I live in your pocket?

Muted and dimmed
I could bear it then
That din
That thin
Mote filled beam
Working in
Through woof and warp
Lover of wife
Father of two
(and one dog)
Doer of deeds
Worker of words
Thinker of Thoughts
Lulling me
Curling me
Heart of me
Tuckered out
Tucked in lookout
Homunculus
Mouse, I.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Precisely, quatona. These are language games.

Well, if the subject and object terms are well defined, and the premises are true, than if the arguments are valid, then the conclusions must be true. Why, just because the topic is abstract (if that is what is motivating you all), ought we to denounce it as "word games"?

Since we have a naturism topic going, I can play language games too.

If I say that I am not wearing any clothes, then no clothes exist to cover my body. However, nonexisting clothes cannot exist. Therefore, I must be wearing clothes.

That has made me think. There may have been an error in my argument. Is that thought therefore a instance of language gaming too, or not?

 

[Cain Spencer]

It's probably not in the form of matter, even scientist have proven it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, if the subject and object terms are well defined, and the premises are true, than if the arguments are valid, then the conclusions must be true.

Yes, if. The problem is that there is a play on the word "nonexistence". This is merely an abstraction referring to the lack of any existing things. It cannot be treated as a thing, and not even as a thing that you end up concluding is impossible because it can't exist as a thing.

Why, just because the topic is abstract (if that is what is motivating you all), ought we to denounce it as "word games"?

No, I love abstractions. However, I also respect them in the morning. I don't treat them as things.

That has made me think. There may have been an error in my argument. Is that thought therefore a instance of language gaming too, or not?

No, that is super-super good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

Non-existence cannot exist, by definition. However, the concept of non-existence can, because it's a concept rather than actual non-existence.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Non-existence cannot exist, by definition.

"Existence exists" logially implies "non existence does not exist", but not "non existentce cannot exist". Only if "non existence cannot exist" is true must "existence must exist" be true, and vice versa.

So, to help us along, amongst other things we are looking for a proof either one way or the other that "existence might not exist" is either logically possible, or a logical contradiction. If it is possible, then "non existence might exist" is true. If it is a contradiction, then "non existence cannot exist" is true.

I think so, anyway...

Another thought: if existence and only existence is in the space time continuum, then there is no space or time that non-existence can be.

 

[Chesterton]

Non-existence cannot exist, by definition. However, the concept of non-existence can, because it's a concept rather than actual non-existence.

Wait, but then the concept has to exist...

 

[tucker58]

Growing Smaller, you do realized that there is a significant amount of time when the matter that we perceive as being real is not even here. The stuff that makes up what we call matter pops in and out of what we call existence and a lot of the time it isn't even here.

And that what we call matter is mostly empty space with absolutely nothing in it.

love,

tuck