/lit/ - Literature

>>12305859
Nothing is something.

>>12305865
Why is there "something" instead of ""

>mfw no one ever bothers to present an argument as to why there would be nothing.

>>12305953
>no arguments for nothing
Isn't that the best argument.

>>12305873
you can only ask this because something is different from “” so difference is older than both
Derrida spelled it Differance
what a strange non-concept is Differance

>>12305965
How could that be the best argument if it's literally nothing?

>>12305859
Something is only a thing as much as it can be compared to nothing like a shadow can only form if there is a light to shine, but for there to be a shadow there has to be the third part of the equation; the 'I'. There is something only because i am there to know it is and there is nothing only because i can theorize there isn't.

>>12305859
Because without something, neither something nor nothing make any sense. We know what non-existence is because it’s non-existent. Everything has always existed. All is the movement toward truth.

Everything adds up to nothing. A balance is preserved so that if you throw everything together it equals zero. This world is the rippling of the void.

>>12305985
>lol dude everything is nothing it's all the same maaan *hits blunt*

>>12305985

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>Gen 1.1-5 (KJV)

>>12305974
Sounds like a paradox
If something originated from the "differance", Why was there a "differance" instead of nothing?

>>12305980
Are you implying that "something" needs to be validated by a self conscious being to be something? Because the universe was relatively already old when life started

>>12305981
>everything has always existed
That doesnt make sense in a universe with entropy and decay as an absolute general law

>>12306036
Why is there a god to create things instead of nothing

>>12306102
Because God is eternal and unchanging. If he is unchanging and is now, then he must have always been, and always will be.

>>12305975
nonexistent arguments for nonexistence

>>12306102
>Are you implying that "something" needs to be validated by a self conscious being to be something?
Yes, it is likely the case that the world existed before, and will after, life. But without life the world is a husk made up of meaningless elements with as much value as one could give it. For all i care once i'm gone the world ends, 'après moi, le déluge!' as they say, and before me tehre was nothing as well.

>>12306102
>That doesnt make sense in a universe with entropy and decay as an absolute general law
Yeah well you’re just a monkey of course it doesn’t make sense to you. Time is a dimension and exists as a whole

>>12305859
'Nothing' is something which never existed.
You see illusions of 'nothing' wherever there is irrelevance, and there is a lot that is irrelevant, so naturally it seems unnatural to you that there is only 'something' and not any 'nothing'.

>>12305859
The proper way to phrase this question is: Why is there a thing? Then: Why is this thing as it is?
The thing being self, God, the universe, whatever you prefer.

"instead of"

>>12305859
There is only 1 thing, not many. Divisions are illusions for the purpose of describing the infinite with a finite mind and perspective. An artificial separation for the purpose of comparing fractions of a whole.

>>12306682
This doesn't answer the question. Whether we can imagine nothing is irrelevant, the question is why is there something at all

>>12306753
And I'm saying that's a dumb question

>>12306772
By using circular logic

>>12306789
It's the only kind of logic that works regardless of axioms.

>>12305859
What-is-not cannot exist. There was always something by necessity.

>>12306725
>””

>>12305859
The answer is a rearangement of your post. This is something instead of nothing. You are part of that something and so the very notion of nothing is simply impossible for you and me tp imagine or by any means grasp. Possibly the strongest argument for the spul if you ask me, by design nothingness is unthinkable and even illogical and therefore everlasting life through the soul is the natural conclusion.
Nothing is in essence the polar opposite of something which requires "something" to in actuality "be", in the same vein as good and bad, light and darkness. In order to even be able to consider nothing you would need to exist in something, as a platform of observation.

>>12306111
underrated post

>>12305859
both state are true

>>12306110
Why is God eternal and unchanging?

>>12305953
Nothing and something are the same if you expand something to infinity

>>12305859
I was trying to resolve this paradox once, of something coming from nothing. The first mover and infinite regression are both dissatisfying because they place the causality of existence beyond existence itself, when it seems like any cause would necessarily become a part of the universe in introducing causality at all.
My theory is that the end of our universe will be the force which creates its own beginning, so the end of the universe necessarily entails its own beginning.
Not even sure if I believe it, but I've been pursuing the argument for a while now, interested to hear what others might think.

>>12307165

>>12306808
Surprisingly good answer, the ever existance of something as a natural state is hard to imagine and implies alot but yet here we are.
Cant help to ask , why there was always something?
but at that point the question wouldnt make sense and couldn't be answered

>>12307178
This is a different way to put this
>>12306808

Although seems like a valid answer the statement implies alot about the nature of the universe, a few implications i can think of right now could be
-Predetermination
-Entropy is part of a bigger cycle
-Not everything is relative
-Absolutism

Pure being is naught; pure negativity is simple coming-to-be, mediation, or the I existing for itself. Material substance is determinate thought, or Nous (simplicity). Therefore negativity is reflective turning into self, that is, self-moving self-sameness. The concept is the self-moving and self-distinguishing thought which is it's own inwardness and otherness. The otherness which defines the concept is the coming-to-be of the intelligibility of the concept, which is rationality.

>>12305953
It's certainly simpler.

>>12307158
because muh bible said so!!

>>12307403
your point?

>>12307377
Predetermination is a fact. All particles have been in movement since the big bang and their final goal is just the predetermined destination from those initial conditions. Everything can be predicted if given the proper computational power.

>>12307446
If there is no Nothing outside of thought, then we are the Nothing thinking (relating to) itself

>>12307448
wrong, a computer that could perfectly simulate my behavior/subjectivity would itself HAVE TO BE that subjectivity

>>12305859
Because something rules. Suck it, nihilists

>>12307448
>being a Newtonian in the year two thousand and nineteen

yikes

>>12307446
>>12307462
Parmenidian Being, absolute a = a, although nominally true is simply trivial. The absolute is Being, but pure Being is nothingness. The coming-to-be of Being from nothingness is Becoming, a whole which holds the determinate and it's negative together in transition like the seed to the plant to bud to the flower. Being and nothing only exist in immediacy, in simplicity, Becoming sublates the two into mediation.

>>12307158

The temporary and the changing must pass and change from and into the absolute. Individuation sufficient for a single instance of ending or changing cannot arise from fundamental entropy and chaos since such things have no potential for generating any and all things you know of - entropy scrambled by chaos or chaos arrested by entropy only results in mutually aggravating entropy and chaos, never in them having respite from themselves or from each other - and less potential still for maintaining them with any staying power or order at all, least of all from basal nothingness.

>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

>>12307524
the self-relating/sublating of Nothingness IS becoming

Define "there"

The better question is:
Why is there nothing instead of something?

>>12307622
"stead"

>>12307512
Ignoring the entire field of dynamics in 2019. Yikes. Math has advanced since Cantor.

>>12307462
Implying the illusion of subjectivity and conciousness have any bearing on the movement of particles.

>>12307686
Plus your behavior is just from the arrangement of particles in your brain coupled with experience which is gained from interaction with other particles. Things aren't very complex there are just a lot of things.

>>12307606

>>12307524
At a quark level the becoming state makes no sense

>>12307377
It doesn't imply any of those things.

>>12307691
>>12307686

you lack the intuition to understand what I'm saying

>>12307735
A cycle with the end as its own beginning would need external forces to be different on each cycle.
If internal forces could manipulate the shape of every end and beginning, every cycle would be unpredictable and would slowly decay.
At this point i could say there was no cycle but the illusion of one therefore "something" had a beginning, taking everything back to the original question

>>12307377
I'm >>12307178. While the theory of a self-creating universe does necessarily entail that the end creates the beginning, this is the only "predetermined" fact, and it's not exactly predetermined, only teleologically necessary. It's more that creation ex nihilo is an existential loan that needs to be repaid by the universe itself, and which is repaid through self-creation. Consciousness and free will are the faculties of self-creation in humans, so universal self-creation requires consciousness/free will too; these are the gates to self-creation in humans (living organisms) and the universe. The end of the universe would be like a gigantic unified body with ultimate consciousness (omniscience) and ultimate free will (omnipotence), which, due to creating the universe/itself, is God.

>>12305859
Maybe it's a dumb question because it's a very human way to look at everything and wonder about it? Maybe something is just more natural than nothing and the inherent property of "_"... is... just to... be? Thinking and reasoning breaks down at this point, this may be the ultimate intellectual void. One can't even begin to conjure up answers or fantasize about different states, dimensions, gods, whatever - in the end this question still remains unanswerable.

>>12307757
I don't think you're saying anything of value. You didn't even refute anything. You just said a computer would have to understand your subjective thoughts and actions and I'm saying there is no subjectivity. You are clearly missing the point either willfully or through sheer incompetence.

>>12305859
yawn

>>12308354
>there is no subjectivity

who or what is making this statement? do you even know what you're saying?

>>12308372
Yes I do. Subjectivity can only occur through consciousness which is in itself an illusion. If consciousness is not real then subjectivity is a non concept. It doesn't exist.

>>12306797
which is why people use axioms and then debate their validity, brainlet

>>12308415
I can't believe this passes intellectual muster with you brainlets

Then your position is self-refuting.

No you really don't know what you're saying.

>>12308478
Did you even pass algebra?

>>12308415
Consciousness is the only non-illusion.

I don't know why thinking about that makes me so uncomfortable.

Even if there's a god and a heaven that question remains.

No matter what belief I have or hold I wont ever be able to stop reducing it to "why?" I try to ignore it.

>>12308607

>>12305859
this is nothing cunt. bunch of dead space with shiny lights and dumb self important apes

>>12305953
Why would there be something?

>>12305859
idk but i prefer there to be something instead of nothing