something from nothing?

[hixidom]

Is the only way we know that consciousness exists the result of its contrast to unconsciousness?

I determine the boundary of myself by observing which objects are not-me. Defining a thing or concept means specifying a boundary around it, the outside of the boundary corresponding to the anti-definition. "Nothing" is defined in defining "something". In essence, a definition is a boundary between two concepts. You can't define a boundary around what is meant by "something" without outlining what is meant by "nothing". How can you define a boundary with an inside but no outside. That is what we mean when we say that they define each other and that if one exists, they must both exist. The concept of nothing shouldn't be any more difficult than no-money or no-apples. It's just more general of a concept. Perhaps we should clarify which type of nothing we're talking about: Is "nothing" the opposite of "anything", "everything", "something"?

Also, it seems to me that in claiming that nothing does not exist you assume that nothing exists. If nothing exists, it is something. If it does not exist, it is nothing, and thus nothing exists. Saying that nothing exists may be a paradox, but saying that it does not exist is also a paradox. At least it seems that way to me.

There can't ever be NOTHING if there is something

Why can nothing and something not exist simultaneously? Why can there not be something in some places and times, and nothing in other places in times. There is enough spacetime for both to have a time and place.

I agree that the particle physics/quantum fluctuations example was not a good one. How about the big bang then. I know it's a highly speculative event but, as far as I know, the consensus is that even time and space were nonexistent "beforehand".
EDIT: I think this example opens another can of worms. :?

 

[spinCycle]

I really like Terrence McKenna's take on this:

The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.

Well, I say then, if science gets one free miracle, then everybody gets one free miracle.

:shock:

 

[joedirt]

Yet in spite of the fact that no one has experienced a “contrast” to consciousness, I don’t think anyone would argue that consciousness can’t be experienced.

We fall asleep every night and we wake up in the morning.
Since many hours have lapsed since we were last conscious we can certainly deduce that we were indeed unconscious.

For far longer than humans have been around, sleep has provided a great contrast to consciousness.

So you are right no one would claim to argue that consciousness can't be experienced, but everyone also has a reference for what it means to be unconscious. If there were no unconscious reference then we would not know we were conscious because there would be no other state but conscious.

Question: Can anyone thing of a conscious being (on earth) that doesn't have an unconscious state to contrast with? I am aware of a few cases of humans who lost the need to sleep, but they still experienced unconsciousness before hand.

http://www.mindupdate.com/2007/04/the-mystery-of-sleep-and-the-lucky-few-who-dont-need-it/

 

[gibran2]

Yet in spite of the fact that no one has experienced a “contrast” to consciousness, I don’t think anyone would argue that consciousness can’t be experienced.

We fall asleep every night and we wake up in the morning.
Since many hours have lapsed since we were last conscious we can certainly deduce that we were indeed unconscious.

For far longer than humans have been around, sleep has provided a great contrast to consciousness.

So you are right no one would claim to argue that consciousness can't be experienced, but everyone also has a reference for what it means to be unconscious. If there were no unconscious reference then we would not know we were conscious because there would be no other state but conscious.

Question: Can anyone thing of a conscious being (on earth) that doesn't have an unconscious state to contrast with? I am aware of a few cases of humans who lost the need to sleep, but they still experienced unconsciousness before hand.

http://www.mindupdate.com/2007/04/the-mystery-of-sleep-and-the-lucky-few-who-dont-need-it/

I’m not saying that we don’t regularly become unconscious – that’s obvious. What I’m trying to get across is that we don’t – and can’t – experience unconsciousness.

Dreamless sleep is not experienced. Sleep with dreams is a conscious experience.

As you said, we deduce the existence of unconsciousness by examining time gaps, observing others, etc., but unconsciousness remains a concept – an intellectual idea or abstraction. In the same sense, “nothing” can’t ever be experienced. It is an intellectual concept.

 

[joedirt]

Yet in spite of the fact that no one has experienced a “contrast” to consciousness, I don’t think anyone would argue that consciousness can’t be experienced.

We fall asleep every night and we wake up in the morning.
Since many hours have lapsed since we were last conscious we can certainly deduce that we were indeed unconscious.

For far longer than humans have been around, sleep has provided a great contrast to consciousness.

So you are right no one would claim to argue that consciousness can't be experienced, but everyone also has a reference for what it means to be unconscious. If there were no unconscious reference then we would not know we were conscious because there would be no other state but conscious.

Question: Can anyone thing of a conscious being (on earth) that doesn't have an unconscious state to contrast with? I am aware of a few cases of humans who lost the need to sleep, but they still experienced unconsciousness before hand.

http://www.mindupdate.com/2007/04/the-mystery-of-sleep-and-the-lucky-few-who-dont-need-it/

I’m not saying that we don’t regularly become unconscious – that’s obvious. What I’m trying to get across is that we don’t – and can’t – experience unconsciousness.

Dreamless sleep is not experienced. Sleep with dreams is a conscious experience.

As you said, we deduce the existence of unconsciousness by examining time gaps, observing others, etc., but unconsciousness remains a concept – an intellectual idea or abstraction. In the same sense, “nothing” can’t ever be experienced. It is an intellectual concept.

I fully agree, but likewise consciousness is also a concept that only has meaning when compared to unconsciousness.... Whcih we have to infer

Btw some buddusts do talk about maintaining awareness in deep sleep. They claim that every night we enter the clear light of the void...

 

[Vodsel]

I'm with gibran2 in this one.

I think the analogies with consciousness-unconsciousness or apples-no apples simply don't work, if intended as

How can you define a boundary with an inside but no outside. That is what we mean when we say that they define each other and that if one exists, they must both exist.

Only conceptually. In logic you define proposition A and that immediately defines not-A, but that doesn't make it less an intellectual abstraction.

And about that can of worms the big bang is... the big bang idea comes after an extension towards the past of the physical processes we observe in the present. It assumes a certain stability in the physical laws across time, and in the end of that road, some postulates claims there was nothing, or a point of infinite density. You'll hardly find a more conceptualized outcome than that.

In the consciousness analogy, unconsciousness implies the absence of a process. That does not imply there is nothing at all.

Nothing is nothing, it is as easy as a concept as non-existent in physical reality and our experience of it.

 

[○]

Btw some buddusts do talk about maintaining awareness in deep sleep. They claim that every night we enter the clear light of the void...

Yes. Its heavily talked about in Hindu philosophy. Turiya, or the 'fourth state' they say is pure awareness; pure consciousness and is the state that underlies yet transcends the 3 states of waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep. The Hindus say its like walking over a buried treasure night after night.

 

[joedirt]

Nothing is nothing, it is as easy as a concept as non-existent in physical reality and our experience of it.

Can you show me nothing?
Can you do it without making any sort of reference to something?

We only say we are conscious because we know there to be an unconscious state.
I think consciousness and unconsciousness actually work perfectly in this duality description.

If we never slept, never died, and were never unconscious would we ever talk about being conscious?

Furthermore we wouldn't have the concept of awake which is analogous to conscious.

Of course this is all just fun philosophical semantics and we all have to get back to the regular world of duality, but it is fun non the less.

The basic premise was that something can't come from nothing and that since there appears to be something that there could not ever have been nothing. To me, based on the arguments I made in the few posts above it seems much more appropriate to say both nothing and something have alway's existed...OR both nothing and something have never existed...and it's all perception.

BUT...I also have issues coming up with a beginning because of cause and effect. There had to be a cause for the first effect. Which means that original cause was in itself an effect and thus also required a cause.

This would seem to imply that there could never have been nothing because there is something, but it could just as easily mean that there is only nothing, and everything else is perception which creates the illusion of something. Of course then we'd have to debate if perception was something.

Oh the fun.

 

[spinCycle]

It's turtles all the way down.

 

[Vodsel]

Nothing is nothing, it is as easy as a concept as non-existent in physical reality and our experience of it.

Can you show me nothing?

Nope
Precisely my point, "nothing" is an abstraction. We can use it as a concept only. I take "nothing" as the absence of anything, and that is not manifested in the reality we know, only in our imagination. And to many, "nothing" has felt even like a freak of our imagination.

We only say we are conscious because we know there to be an unconscious state.
I think consciousness and unconsciousness actually work perfectly in this duality description.

They work in the measure they show us two mutually exclusive things. But as we do know there is an unconscious state, we cannot seem to find "absence of anything". Consciousness, at least regular waking consciousness, appears to be a sub-set of all reality.

I agree with it being a proper analogy if you equal reality to your experience of it. If only what you experience is real, unconsciousness equals nothing - or at least it's darn close to the absolute zero.

Of course this is all just fun philosophical semantics and we all have to get back to the regular world of duality, but it is fun non the less.

Fun and convenient... nothing really matters

 

[Orion]

So something physical can not arise from nothingness as we can imagine it. But we can only imagine nothingness. Popular quantum physics you may have heard of seems to indicate that all of matter is empty space, containing smaller solids moving at high speed giving rise to solidity. I had a vision of the mechanism for how this would work, I'm not sure if the idea is entirely original or not. How to make stuff from nothing - Spirituality & Mysticism - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus.

Life is a duality though, whether or not something comes from nothing or vice versa, if 'nothing' exists at all, it is twinned with 'something'.

 

[Sky Motion]

gibran2 I completely agree with you that the potential to create alone makes "nothing" into "something", and actually I agree with pretty much everything you write here on the nexus, so I have a hell of a lot of respect for you...

But this is probably the first time I've seen you say something which I wanted to comment on:

It’s not a question of “human” logic. It’s a simple fact.

It IS actually a question of human logic, because everytime humans debate about something all they have is human logic. Whenever someone opens their mouth or writes some text, we're dealing with human logic. And that is a simple fact. And because I'm a human too, the fact that I say it's a fact doesn't really mean anything, because it arises from my human logic. So whenever someone mentions the word "fact", it's really a subjective fact, not an objective fact. (sometimes they're really skillfully disguised as objective facts, so be vigilant..)

So to get back on the original topic with my human logic, when you have a concept like "nothing" and then you compare it to a concept like "0", you're already making a huge leap, because mathematics is a human invention in which 0 is just a tool to imply a lack of quantity. When you're talking about an absolute "nothing", it's .. well it's the biggest irony in the human language because it can't be talked about without making it into a "something". Like, here's my best attempt to talk about "nothing" and it goes like this: " " .. But even that was something, so it's impossible to talk or think about *that thing* without assigning it into a concept like "nothing", and a concept is "something".

The difference of 0 and "nothing" is the same as ∞ and "infinity", although there doesn't appear to be a difference at first, the point is that 0 and ∞ (and everything in between) were created as superficial tools for humans to play around with, but when you use the actual words like "nothing" and "infinity" it usually means that you really want to get to the bottom of their meanings. Which is impossible in this human form.

So you can't just calculate the meaning of life out of a human invention like mathematics or logic, but you can use it as a clever way to demonstrate things when you want to talk about your perspective on the human experience, which was exactly what Alan Watts was doing in the quotes of the OP.

And, to answer the question "Something from nothing?", the answer is: "I don't know, and neither do you, but it's fun to talk about it."

Fuckin nailed it, nothing else to say after reading this for me.

 

[DeMenTed]

NOTHING DOESN'T EXIST IMO

 

[DeMenTed]

the only time the term nothing applies is when there was once something that isnt there anymore. Like someones life.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

the only time the term nothing applies is when there was once something that isnt there anymore. Like someones life.

let me refer you to hixidom's earlier post

I determine the boundary of myself by observing which objects are not-me. Defining a thing or concept means specifying a boundary around it, the outside of the boundary corresponding to the anti-definition. "Nothing" is defined in defining "something". In essence, a definition is a boundary between two concepts. You can't define a boundary around what is meant by "something" without outlining what is meant by "nothing". How can you define a boundary with an inside but no outside. That is what we mean when we say that they define each other and that if one exists, they must both exist. The concept of nothing shouldn't be any more difficult than no-money or no-apples....
Also, it seems to me that in claiming that nothing does not exist you assume that nothing exists. If nothing exists, it is something. If it does not exist, it is nothing, and thus nothing exists. Saying that nothing exists may be a paradox, but saying that it does not exist is also a paradox. At least it seems that way to me.

 

[DeMenTed]

It certainly is a paradox especially when talking about matter or energy in our universe. This is why i say it only applies to a life, but im not certain on that either as life could change into something else.

 

[VIII]

Interesting thread that I wish I had more to contribute to. I think hixidom described to very well by speaking in terms of relationships.

It is my opinion that if nothing did or does exist it is unable to be experienced or measured in any manner currently known. Nothing may be very prevalent in the universe or around or within us, or it may be there has never been nothing, or nothing only existed before something. Detecting nothing would make it something. Perhaps everything is nothing until experienced or measured.

Maybe I agree with joedirt on this one.

Nothing is a concept that can only exist relative to Something.
Something is a concept that can only exist relative to Nothing.

The only thing that matters is perception.

Edit: Instinctively what comes to mind when I think of nothing is, "What I do not know is nothing."
I do not mean this in the sense that I know everything, but that the substance of 'something' I do not know can only be measured as nothing.There is 'nothing' to it.
I suppose it could also be said, "What I do not experience is nothing." "What I do not perceive is nothing."

I don't know :roll:

 

[DMT Psychonaut]

How can you define a boundary with an inside but no outside.

We usually define the universe as a boundry within which everything exist, yet we don't typically concieve of an "outside" to the universe.

 

[nen888]

..nothing over there, something over here..

that is logically possible

to say 'nothing does not exists' is illogical IMO..

 

[DeMenTed]

..nothing over there, something over here..

that is logically possible

to say 'nothing does not exists' is illogical IMO..

It's not as stupid as it sounds. If nothing did exist then it would make it a something. This is where the paradox comes in though.
I think the idea of nothing exists but it doesn't exist in our 3 dimensial reality or in the universe. I think it exists in our minds.

The o.p asks something from nothing? If you imagine in your head a big empty space that is void of anything and then you imagine a bike or whatever appearing in that space then to me that would be creating something from nothing. But this is just an idea in your head, it isn't actually or physically happening. In our real life reality it would be impossible imo to appear from nowhere, it would need to have came from something to make it a physical reality. So if it came from something then obvioulsy it never came from nothing.

You say "nothing over there something over here" and that is logical. That's like someone asking you to describe whats in an empty room. Of course you will say theres nothing in the room but that wouldn't be true. The room is full to the brim with gases and particles etc that we can't see.

When i say nothing doesn't exist i mean that it's impossible for it to exist in our universe or observable surroundings but the idea of nothing definitely exists within our imagination. I hope this makes sense just my opinion.