Nothingness

[bennyboy]

The question is whether it exists only as a concept, or as an object locatable in time and place (or some other framework).

Considering that every 'thing' is only a concept as long as something is defining it... is not the first most important question instead: does everything only exist as I observe, or do I not observe all the ways in which all things might exist? [. . .]
All you can be sure of... is that in *your* existence: you are seeing the universe from your perspective.

You don't know me yet, but you're largely preaching to the choir. Anything beyond solipsism requires increasing levels of assumption. The question is: am I willing to make those assumptions?

When it comes to things like mind/matter duality or whether there can be a Deity, I'm more likely to default to the subjective rather than to filter things through a physical monist model. However, if you're talking about the universe as it's usually defined, you're ALREADY implicitly accepting certain assumptions: in particular, about the existence of an objective physical universe. I wouldn't, for example, talk about an "idealistic universe," because that's not how the word universe is used. Nor would I attempt to tell someone else that I'm a solipsist, or worse, that they are a solipsist; attempting to communicate with others while relying only on the pure knowledge of direct experience is really a refusal to communicate.

Nothing is definitely something... how could it be otherwise?

This paradox comes from the wordplay. Obviously, it is something, because we are talking about it. I'd suggest that to say "the universe comes from nothing" points to idealism or Deism, since while a CONCEPT of nothingness might allow for new ideas to fold, an absolute nothingness couldn't even have the potential for non-nothingness, and we wouldn't be here.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to claim idealism or Deism. I'm only saying that "something from nothing" is an idea that physicalists must avoid like the plague.