(February 11, 2018 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote:(February 11, 2018 at 9:33 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: No, the problem lies with any attempt to conceive of “nothing”. Nothing, as a concept, isn’t nothing; it’s a concept, which a thing that exists. Literally the moment you attempt to use descriptive language and visualization to generate an idea of “nothing”, you are no longer talking about nothing. You are describing something. Logically speaking, ‘nothing’ is not possible.
I have already conceded that there is a possible world where there is nothing except abstract objections--which includes the concept of existence. We can certainly conceive of a world where there are no concrete objects. If you don't think so, show the logic--that's the whole point of possible worlds semantics.
I think the problem many of us have with "abstract objects" is whether they are discovered or invented.
Is mathematics discovered or invented?
Is the concept of the perfect circle a discovery or an invention?
Is the concept of existence a discovery or an invention?
If they are discoveries, then I'd agree with you on there being such a world, or realm, of abstract concepts.
But if they are invented, then they are contingent upon rational minds - minds which, as far as we can tell, are contingent upon working brains, which are contingent upon a whole plethora of biological machinery, which is contingent on chemistry and, ultimately, physics.... the same physics that popped out of the big bang through... who knows?... quantum fluctuations?
So the best guess we have for the only necessary thing is the framework upon which all of existence plays out: space-time.
I can forgive philosophers from pre-1950's to completely fail to understand this. I can understand philosophers from 30 or 40 years after that to hold on to the ideas of their masters... but it's now 2018 and philosophy must catch up with science and realize that somethings are not so clear cut as they were led to believe by prior generations.