(November 8, 2016 at 12:59 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(November 7, 2016 at 11:31 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: The universe is finite in size but it has always existed and there has always been space.

Finite and eternal indeed.

There was no time before time and no space before space.

How do you know that? Maybe you should inset "as we know and understand it".

"Before" is a temporal and spacial concept.

(November 8, 2016 at 1:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Probably too strong of a claim.

For "nothing" to be it would have to be something and that isn't nothing.

Quote:Not an existential question.  That's a qualitative issue. 

You can't have an alternative universe that isn't a universe.

Quote:That would be a strange formulation of the linguistic problem of negative existentials.

It's not really a problem. Absences aren't existential; presences are existential. Absences are non-existent; presences are existent.

Quote:If we say, as we might, in reference to the first sentence That "hypothetical absences of universes do not exist" - we've contradicted ourselves...obviously hypothetical absences of universes -do- exist, they are exactly what we are objecting to, lol.

Actually I'm objecting to the concept of a hypothetical of an absence of universe. I'm saying a hypothetical of an absence of a universe can't exist because all absences are unimaginable. You can think you've imagined an absence or nonexistence but you haven't. It's impossible to think of nothing. We can think of the concept of nothing or the word "nothing" but we can't think of nothing.

Quote: What we mean to say is that such hypotheticals are not accurate or are somehow flawed - a qualitative issue, not an existential one.

It's existential insofar as "Do absences of universes whether real or hypothetical exist?" and the answer is "No because all absences are the very opposite of existent."  

Quote:Plenty of answers to the issue of negative existentials, but we don't know which, if any of them, are accurate...which is -one- of the reasons that the claim at the very top is too strong of a claim.

Absolute absences are absolutely absent. That's the answer to the question of absolute negative existentials. This is what I mean by "existence must exist if it is defied as the totality of all things". "An existent thing" is a tautology. To say "God exists" is to say "God is a thing" to say "God does not exist" is to say "God is not a thing" or "there is no such thing as God."

The same applies to universes and everything else.

Quote: We don't know whether or not "nothing can/cannot be"...but we do know we have a hell of a difficult time even discussing it, let alone answering the question.

"Nothing" can only be something if we define it as something other than nothing. "Nothing" means "not something"... so for nothing to ever be something it would have to be defined as something other than nothing. Obviously.

It's like... can a bachelor be married whilst remaining a bachelor? Well, only if we define a "bachelor" as something other than "an umarried person". And... can there be square circles? Well, only if we define "square" as something other than "a shape with four straight sides".

It's pretty basic. No, nothing can't be something if "nothing" is defined to mean "not anything".

Quote: OFC, other languages, and other systems of inference don't even have this problem - and that's amusing to note.

Not true. Doesn't matter what words you use or how many words you use to mean "something" or "nothing"... if you're talking about something you're talking about something and if you're talking about nothing you're talking about nothing. If you're talking about existence you're talking about existence and if you're talking about nonexistence you're talking about nonexistence.

If a language was unable to describe "something" or "nothing" at all? Or if no one existed to speak in language at all? Again, irrelevant: Use/mention error once again. It doesn't matter whether we exist to describe "something" or "nothing" or not... all life on the planet could die and it's still a fact of the matter that the universe exists.

Quote: It's not the only place that natural language is or may be a stumbling block, we run into a similar issue in considering the direction and nature of causality, at least in english, lol..in what's sometimes called the problem of the ship at sea.

Nah this isn't about language. I'm using language to define "something" and "nothing" a certain way but it's still the case that something is something and nothing is nothing. They're exact opposites. Whether we exist or not there's no alternative to something being something.

Dean Rickles answers "Why is there something rather than nothing?" like I do. Existence must exist Existence is not contingent. Non-existence is a logical impossibility. Existence is necessary because there is literally no alternative:

(May 21, 2016 at 5:54 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Whatever existence is, I don't need to go into in order to argue that whatever it is it is indeed eternally existent.

Here is my argument:

Existence must always exist because that is the same as existence always being existent. Existence must always be existent for the same reason that atheists must always be atheistic, theists must always be theistic, agnostics must always be agnostic, elephants must always be elephant like, humans must always be human, squares must always be square, circles must always be circular, triangles must always be triangular, etc etc [fill in the blank]. This is the Law of Identity in logic. It is A=A and is never not A.

Because existence is existent at all times, that logically entails that existence, whatever it is, is eternal and never began and will never stop. This is different to the beginning of the universe or the big bang.

The question is never whether existence itself exists, whatever it is it is existent by definition for the reason explained above. The real question is twofold I reckon:

1. What exactly is existence?
2. Is question 1 a pointless question and existence by itself as the totality of all things a rather vacuous concept or is it worth thinking about?

Something about existence (whatever it is) is ontologically necessary and not merely historically necessary (like you said, "this is different to the beginning of the universe or big bang"). "Whatever [existence] is, it is existent by definition", and "that logically entails that existence, whatever it is, is eternal and never began and will never stop".

1) Great question. Do some things "begin" or "cease" to exist or both? In other words, even if the "totality of all things" is continuously and eternally existent, do some things exist discontinuously and temporally within that totality?

2) I think it is a good question worth thinking about.

I think that in one sense no things begin or cease to exist... in the sense that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Every thing changes form rather than ever beginning or ceasing.

Does that mean that "I" never began to exist, or does it mean that "I" am not a thing after all?

existence is just another word in the dictionary between excreta and errata

You mentioned one sense. Is there any sense in which we may understand things to begin and/or cease?

(November 25, 2016 at 6:16 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Does that mean that "I" never began to exist, or does it mean that "I" am not a thing after all?

No you are a thing, a living thing. You in your form of "I" began to exist. The energy you are made of did not. Your thingness never began, your identity did.

That's my perspective anyways

(November 25, 2016 at 6:18 pm)Ignorant Wrote: You mentioned one sense. Is there any sense in which we may understand things to begin and/or cease?

If we interpret that a thing that changes its identity enough becomes a separate thing entirely even when its ultimately the same collection of atoms, then yes things begin and cease to exist whenever they change their identity enough. But the cut-off point is arbitrary and defined by us humans (like, "how many grains of sand = a heap?" kind of arbitrary). And IMO since energy cannot be created or destroyed I personally think that the interpretation closest to the truth is one that says things themselves never begin or exist... that all things are just parts of the totality of all things... and their forms and identities are all that really change and cease and begin.