Everything that can exist must exist.

[Crezth]

And please, nonexistence has no properties. "Nothing" cannot be, since being is a property in itself.

Nothing and something are two properties of one quality: the state of being. Insofar as you can assert that existence is a "property in itself," all things can be said to either exist or not exist.

But this is not born out by evidence. There is an infinite division by degrees of "being" between nothing and something, which we can call "0" and "1" respectively. Take, for example, an apple. Would you call a full, unmolested, ripened and plucked apple an apple? What would you call it if I took a bite out of it? Or what if I ate the entire thing? At what point, in other words, does the apple cease to be an apple, or changes properties and becomes something else entirely? Since I do not eat the apple all at once, even the change in property is gradual. We can perhaps say that an apple with a bite out of it is 90% apple, 10% not, but unless there is a sudden watershed moment between apple and no-apple then it is a matter of degree. Nothing is truly "apple," as that is meaningless; it can at best be said to be "mostly apple." Perhaps more rigorously, we can say that the space formally occupied by apple-stuff is mostly apple-stuff.

The key takeaway of this exercise is to illuminate that there is no fundamental difference between existing and not-existing. Or to be more clear, something and nothing. It is mostly a matter of degree. And since you insist on using a tautology to demonstrate that existence exists, we must apply with equal rigor to this qualification what we do to that of the apple. That is to say: existence mostly exists (depending on your associated axioms, anyway). This reasoning can be extrapolated to include your theoretical "all things exist because existence exists" and I presume you see where I am going with this. All things mostly exist, or most of all things exist, perhaps. The exact dimensions are unknown, but it does not demonstrate a fundamental change in quality to have some things not exist while other things do. Something from nothing, in other words.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

I actually formulated this idea on my own, and found this video from searching Youtube on solipsism. I thought it was interesting but I'm not sure if it is flawed. Discuss.

The discourse you transcripted is flawed indeed, from top to bottom. Zero argumentative value in that video. The guy has lost himself.
Solipsism is flawed as well and shows fundamental misconceptions about human nature. Perfectly useless theory as a whole. A historical fraud.


To anyone earnestly interested in the OP statement, I would suggest to look into the works of philosopher Henri Bergson.
Bergson is major and modern (XXth century). His works and many commentaries should be available worldwide in academic libraries. Students love him because, if the argumentation is tight, it's very clearly written and a beautiful, litterary language.


In a nutshell,
Bergson rejects most of traditionnal dialectics and especially metaphysics.
Thus, he defines a philosophical method that will allow him to develop a philosophy of his own.
He founds both of his method and philosophy in a renewed ontology (theory of what it is to be human).

Core criticisms that Bergson charges at metaphysics stem from the notions of "badly analysed composites" (or mixed concepts) and the "false problems" (wrong terms, wrong questions) that they produce.
e.g. Being and non-being. In dialectics, being and non-being form an antagonistic pair: being is supposedly the opposite of non-being. Where being is plus, non-being is minus.
However, Bergson argues that there is actually more in the idea of non-being than in there is in the idea of being.
Thus, non-being cannot be the opposite of being but is rather an elaboration on the concept of being:
One needs to a) think of the concept of being, then b) think of the negation of that concept to c) think of non-being.
Step b) introduces an additional layer of abstraction. At step c), the concept of non-being is a badly analysed mix of being plus the negation of that concept.

Bergson's conclusion: it is fallacious to oppose being and non-being when they are really a single concept: that of being.
Bergson has formed plenty of conceptual pairs. They sound like time/matter, dilated/contracted, intuition/perception... hmmm... forgot!


A very satisfying introduction to Bergson (not even 150p) has been written by Gilles Deleuze and that is called Bergsonism. "Only 13 left (but more are on the way)" says Amazon.com

 

[History_Buff]

Well, I thought he said:

Things come out of nothing all the time.

but that must have been my imagination.

They do. Even in the most perfect vacuum creatable (effectively equivalent to nothing), particles and anti-particles pop into existence, and then annihilate again.


Even if you don't agree that a perfect vacuum doesn't meet the definition of nothing (which it easily might not), my question still stands. Why can't something arise from nothing?

 

[Leoreth]

If a perfect vacuum does not meet the criteria of "nothing", what does? Total absence of spacetime? I was about to suggest virtual particles and quantum foam myself, but then I expected to hear the aforementioned counterargument.

It seems that this definition of nothing is chosen to exactly make it impossible to give a counterexample.

 

[dutchfire]

They do. Even in the most perfect vacuum creatable (effectively equivalent to nothing), particles and anti-particles pop into existence, and then annihilate again.


Even if you don't agree that a perfect vacuum doesn't meet the definition of nothing (which it easily might not), my question still stands. Why can't something arise from nothing?

Just renormalize your field theory, and you can have an "empty" vacuum. Of course, if you start changing the definition of empty and vacuum, you can make any such argument work.

 

[History_Buff]

If a perfect vaccum does not meet the criteria of "nothing", what does? Total absence of spacetime?

Yeah, I'm afraid Mouth is going to require something like this.

Then we're just trapped in a cycle of "show how things start to exist in a universe (that's the wrong word really) where things can't possibly exist".

 

[ParkCungHee]

But this is not born out by evidence. There is an infinite division by degrees of "being" between nothing and something, which we can call "0" and "1" respectively. Take, for example, an apple. Would you call a full, unmolested, ripened and plucked apple an apple? What would you call it if I took a bite out of it? Or what if I ate the entire thing? At what point, in other words, does the apple cease to be an apple, or changes properties and becomes something else entirely? Since I do not eat the apple all at once, even the change in property is gradual. We can perhaps say that an apple with a bite out of it is 90% apple, 10% not, but unless there is a sudden watershed moment between apple and no-apple then it is a matter of degree. Nothing is truly "apple," as that is meaningless; it can at best be said to be "mostly apple." Perhaps more rigorously, we can say that the space formally occupied by apple-stuff is mostly apple-stuff.

Or you can say the object your senses tell you about is analogous to The Apple of the forms.

 

[Mouthwash]

If a perfect vaccum does not meet the criteria of "nothing", what does? Total absence of spacetime? I was about to suggest virtual particles and quantum foam myself, but then I expected to hear the aforementioned counterargument.

It seems that this definition of nothing is chosen to exactly make it impossible to give a counterexample.

You cannot have "nothing" between you and another. If you did, you would be touching. Nothing is not something that can contain space, because if it had space it would be a void. If something tried to move into a void, the void would either have to cease, or the existence of the something would disappear. Nothing would truly be unable to be considered a thing because it cannot exist in the spacial sense.

 

[History_Buff]

You cannot have "nothing" between you and another. If you did, you would be touching. Nothing is not something that can contain space, because if it had space it would be a void. If something tried to move into a void, the void would either have to cease, or the existence of the something would disappear. Nothing would truly be unable to be considered a thing because it cannot exist in the spacial sense.

So your definition of nothing is such that the term has no meaning?

 

[Souron]

You cannot have "nothing" between you and another. If you did, you would be touching. Nothing is not something that can contain space, because if it had space it would be a void. If something tried to move into a void, the void would either have to cease, or the existence of the something would disappear. Nothing would truly be unable to be considered a thing because it cannot exist in the spacial sense.

Ok, but how does this tie into the point that everything exists?

Also, nothing is may not be a thing, but void is. Void could exist. And indeed it would be destroyed if something else moved into it.

 

[Mouthwash]

Ok, but how does this tie into the point that everything exists?

Also, nothing is may not be a thing, but void is. Void could exist. And indeed it would be destroyed if something else moved into it.

We need to define "destroy," here.

 

[Mouthwash]

Nothing and something are two properties of one quality: the state of being. Insofar as you can assert that existence is a "property in itself," all things can be said to either exist or not exist.

But this is not born out by evidence. There is an infinite division by degrees of "being" between nothing and something, which we can call "0" and "1" respectively. Take, for example, an apple. Would you call a full, unmolested, ripened and plucked apple an apple? What would you call it if I took a bite out of it? Or what if I ate the entire thing? At what point, in other words, does the apple cease to be an apple, or changes properties and becomes something else entirely? Since I do not eat the apple all at once, even the change in property is gradual. We can perhaps say that an apple with a bite out of it is 90% apple, 10% not, but unless there is a sudden watershed moment between apple and no-apple then it is a matter of degree. Nothing is truly "apple," as that is meaningless; it can at best be said to be "mostly apple." Perhaps more rigorously, we can say that the space formally occupied by apple-stuff is mostly apple-stuff.

The key takeaway of this exercise is to illuminate that there is no fundamental difference between existing and not-existing. Or to be more clear, something and nothing. It is mostly a matter of degree. And since you insist on using a tautology to demonstrate that existence exists, we must apply with equal rigor to this qualification what we do to that of the apple. That is to say: existence mostly exists (depending on your associated axioms, anyway). This reasoning can be extrapolated to include your theoretical "all things exist because existence exists" and I presume you see where I am going with this. All things mostly exist, or most of all things exist, perhaps. The exact dimensions are unknown, but it does not demonstrate a fundamental change in quality to have some things not exist while other things do. Something from nothing, in other words.

Considering a bale of hay. At what point after removing hay straws from this bale does it stop being a bale?

There is no set definition of "bale", or in your case "apple". Applying your hypothetical percentage only works in reference to the apple that formerly existed. If it was simply a stem, there would be no logical way I can conclude that the picture is a (part) representation of the apple. Let's say I press on and on until I am finally left with a single molecule. I say, "Here is an apple molecule. This is technically still an apple." Of course there is no such thing as an "apple molecule" but molecules with different/proper names (chemical formulas, etc.)

But if there is a set of defined rules, then there is a fundamental difference between being and non-being. If I arbitrarily define a bale of hay to be: "10 hay strands, minimum 2 cm long, 1 micrometer wide, arranged to be at minimum 1 mm off the ground..." and keep going until I reach unarguable statements, then how do you verify the existence of this "bale?"

 

[History_Buff]

Because it clearly is one. All non-scientific definitions have grey areas. It's an inevitable truth of life.

 

[Souron]

We need to define "destroy," here.

"Cease to exist." I am saying that void is a hypothetical physical thing capable of having a time, place, and duration. But this is distinct from saying that either non-existence is a physical thing or non existence is a physical thing. And as being a physical thing is closely related to what it means to exist, I posit that neither existence nor non-existance exist.

 

[Warman17]

relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q

 

[Crezth]

Or you can say the object your senses tell you about is analogous to The Apple of the forms.

I actually did chuckle at this. I don't want to go down this road as thar be sea monsters thoseways. ^^;

Considering a bale of hay. At what point after removing hay straws from this bale does it stop being a bale?

There is no set definition of "bale", or in your case "apple". Applying your hypothetical percentage only works in reference to the apple that formerly existed. If it was simply a stem, there would be no logical way I can conclude that the picture is a (part) representation of the apple. Let's say I press on and on until I am finally left with a single molecule. I say, "Here is an apple molecule. This is technically still an apple." Of course there is no such thing as an "apple molecule" but molecules with different/proper names (chemical formulas, etc.)

But if there is a set of defined rules, then there is a fundamental difference between being and non-being. If I arbitrarily define a bale of hay to be: "10 hay strands, minimum 2 cm long, 1 micrometer wide, arranged to be at minimum 1 mm off the ground..." and keep going until I reach unarguable statements, then how do you verify the existence of this "bale?"

Well, you need not use an apple. Realistically you could use, as reference, virtually anything in the universe. A star, a pencil, a city, a river, a nebula, the universe. Things we commonly ascribe the value of "being existent" to.

Anyway part of my assertion is that you could not refer to a molecule that used to be part of an apple as an apple molecule per se. But you could say in some seriousness that it is some infinitesimal amount apple, and in fact probably not just that. An apple core is an instance of being both partially apple and partially apple core - two entities that are formally distinct but are really just shades of the same thing.

And this is the thrust of my argument. When you want to distinguish between states of being, it serves to identify what is so distinct about them. But we can't even seem to find what is so different about existence and non-existence using an apple, which you implicitly acknowledged. Even if apple is simply a contrivance of our own imagination, one cannot readily distinguish between its so-called different states of existence in a fashion that meaningfully identifies that distinction as fundamental. Of an apple, existence and non-existence are the same thing, and the apple itself occupies any point in a gradient between them. We don't need fixed reference points because all such descriptions are a part of that same gradient; there does not need to be a specific definition of apple, nor its measurements, nor its size, and soforth. The apple is ~0% pencil, ~0% space shuttle, whatever% tree, and so on. But it has qualities in common with virtually everything. It is both everything and nothing. So, too, with the case of the entire universe, or "all of existence" as you insist.

So if I may perhaps phrase my point as a question: if one cannot take a mundane object like an apple and illustrate the existence/non-existence dichotomy conclusively, especially when we start thinking about how much of the apple is a pencil and not a pencil or anything, how can one take something like "all of existence" and do the same?

 

[Borachio]

relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q

There you go. Just about sums it up. Rob Bryanton. Nice.


Next.

 

[Leoreth]

You cannot have "nothing" between you and another. If you did, you would be touching. Nothing is not something that can contain space, because if it had space it would be a void. If something tried to move into a void, the void would either have to cease, or the existence of the something would disappear. Nothing would truly be unable to be considered a thing because it cannot exist in the spacial sense.

So "nothing does not exist" is nothing more than a tautology?

 

[Tschibo]

On movie
But spacetime is a length(X0=ct). Time itself is just a indicator for multiples of lightspeed. It shows there is a forth dimension of lenght. A derivate of Gamma Function leads to to a conclusion that 3rd dim is roughly the surface of the 4-dim sphere.

You can imagine a dimension of phonenumbers and add it to your universe, but there will be no gain.
Because a world of (a+b+c)meter +(d)something doesn´t tell you anything.
The system this guy is discribing is of no physical worth.
Just think about the phasespace. It would be a set of, like 5 times "i showered today" vs 3 times "i stink". But how would it be ordered in a linie, because that`s what dimensions do? Any clue about that requires nowledge of the other Dimensions. This makes the phasespase a n-dimensional plane through all (other) dimensions and thus no dimension in itself.
A probability lenght could be defined though.
However a enjoyable movie.

On topic
existence discribes properties between values. in this cases to be not zero. so existence is a operator, deriving the answer 1 or 0. The question "if existance exists" simply applys the operator twice. If the system works, we will get the exact same answer again. so the question is redundant.
When God is the cause for everything, everything is caused by God. Even the nonexistence.
So the postulate of God can not change the system. Creating something from nothing is a spelled-out divide by zero. Since we are obviously there, we exist and nonexistence does not.

 

[Borachio]

But the concept of non-existence exists?

So non-existence has a non-zero value of the parameter "concept".

Ergo, non-existence exists. Or maybe you don't agree.