Little
bit of nothing
Share
P1.
[nothing] has no attributes.
C1. Therefore [nothing] is not
constrained.
C2. Therefore [nothing] can change.
P2. There is
only one [nothing].
C3. When [nothing] changes it becomes
[something].
C4. There is no reason to think [something] cannot
come from [nothing].
C5. Either there was never [nothing] or
[nothing] is the 1st cause.
Either the universe always existed
or God is [nothing].
|
Fritz
Hesser
(Northridge High School) wroteat
3:30pm on April 26th, 2008
I have a
slight problem with P1,
There are attributes to the
concept of [nothing], If [nothing] has no attributes, then
everything, even this paragraph, could be said to be [nothing].
But we are reading this, so it must be [something] (even if it
is just a figment of our imagination, it is still an idea).
Therefore [nothing] must be assigned attributes, such as:
[nothing]ness is the absence of matter, or something to that
effect. And if [nothing]ness has attributes (analytic a priori)
then [nothing]ness is constrained.
This, however, does
not mean that [nothing]ness can not change. I am merely pointed
out that in order to be truly conclusive, P1 and C1 should be
reconsidered. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
10:52pm on April 26th, 2008
no, the
paragraph is a paragraph. If nothingness is the absence of
matter, you've just proven P1 by just denoting an absence. The
word "nothing" is a definition, your talking about
the concept of nothing, not [nothing]. |
| Delete |
|
|
|
There's a
fallacy in the construction of C1. [nothing] is neither
constrained nor not constrained, because it is [nothing]. It is
meaningless to discuss "[nothing] changing," because
in order for something to change it must first have some state
to change from-- hence, it must be [something]. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
12:36am on April 27th, 2008
I think new
evidence from quantum mechanics refutes that. Matter can in
fact spurradically come from nothing, meaning [something] can
come from [nothing] changing in the only way it could, to
become [something]. There is no reason to suppose you have to
have [something] for the act of changing to occur. |
| Delete |
|
|
|
[Something]
coming from [nothing] is not, however, a change of the
[nothing]. Think about it this way: say you have an entity with
some quantifiable property x. At some time, x = 3; later, x =
5. Then the change of this property is 5-3=2. However, say this
thing spontaneously comes into existence. Then the change is
5-__=??? You can't fill in the blank, because [nothing] by
definition has no quantifiable properties. So talking about the
"change" in this case is undefined. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
1:23am on April 27th, 2008
So in other
words if the right word or phrase was supplemented for the word
"change" you'd be happier with it?
|
| Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
1:25am on April 27th, 2008
At any time
you name an x for an example, your no longer talking about
[nothing] and what it can or can't do come to think of it. |
| Delete |
|
|
Fritz
Hesser
(Northridge High School) wroteat
5:38am on April 27th, 2008
I still
have a problem with your P1 through C2. If you say nothing it
unconstrained, aren't you already assigning attributes to
it?
p.s. the absence of matter comment was an example
not a suggestion. The point is that if you say nothing has no
attributes, then everything falls into the definition, because
restricting a definition means applying attributes to it. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
8:29pm on April 27th, 2008
no genius,
unconstrained would be again, denoting and absence. |
| Delete |
|
|
Fritz
Hesser
(Northridge High School) wroteat
11:03pm on April 27th, 2008
I'm not
sure I agree with that, but you still haven't addressed my main
point. To leave it without attributes, means that everything
falls into the definition. It's like saying "everything is
nothing." |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
7:56am on April 28th, 2008
dude, i
didn't make the thing. me and greg talked about this crap for
like two hours the other day. I'm spent |
| Delete |
|
|
Fritz
Hesser
(Northridge High School) wroteat
10:59pm on April 29th, 2008
you mean i
missed it. damn. |
|
