Ecmandu rudely and impulsively blurts out the answer
Nothing cannot exist!!! Because it’s not there!!!
It would have to be something or at least a different form of something!!
Precisely what I am asking and waiting for.
If you accept that something can truly come from NOTHING then you’ve rejected logic, which means no logical proof is going to be possible.
I understand that this is a way of thinking more subtle than most here are used to. The overt error is in conflating two entirely different kinds of “logic”, the logic that is actually the case with the “logic” that you expect would be able to “prove” that something can come from nothing. Because that second “logic” doesn’t exist due to sheer logical impossibility and self-contradiction (it is the proper self-negation of the logical as such), the only logic that remains for you to even employ in any kind of proof or argument is the one that is always-already built from and in terms of the necessary fact that something always comes from something else and never from “nothing”.
Metaphysics. The idea that logic is “real”.
No, that’s not so. What precise “logic” are you saying must be rejected? Logic merely means keeping your words and concepts consistent. So what concepts could not be consistent if it was also true that something could come from nothing?
In a causal universe, nothing can come from nothing because nothing is by definition, not a cause. But if one is questioning whether the entire universe absolutely must be causal everywhere, all of the time, that same logic (aka “by the definition of nothing”) cannot be used because a cause is proposed as not required.
In quantum physics it isn’t as popular, but for years it was promoted that small bubbles of reality were randomly appearing and disappearing “on the quantum level”. The idea was proposed so as to cover up why some equations weren’t working out. It was proposed that perhaps on that level, things randomly slip in and out of “the fourth dimension”. Exactly what logic forbids them from using those excuses for how their equations required that something was magically coming from nothing? MIT grad Prof Laurence Krauss still promotes today that it does.
Logic is just as real as any of the laws of physics (actually more so considering that none of the current “laws” are precisely true). It is logic that lets one know when his law of physics isn’t real.
Actually, Jimmy, it’s observation that let’s us know when theory isn’t fully descriptive.
Observation is completely meaningless without logic.
“Because I saw the water turn blue, it must be true that…” = LOGICAL conclusion.
Logic operates on propositions that it assumes to be true. It does not know whether they are true or not. Because of this, logic can only tell you whether propositions contradict each other or not, it cannot tell you which propositions match reality and which do not. Therefore, logic alone cannot resolve logical contradictions.
One of the mistakes that people who are high on logic make is to resolve logical contradictions by removing whatever propositions make the contradiction go away. Usually, this is the proposition that triggered the contradiction in the first place. This is bad because to be logically consistent does not mean to be true.
In order to resolve logical contradictions, you need to check the truth value of logical propositions by comparing them to reality. This means examining one’s own logical propositions by tracing them back to their source. The goal is to identify logical propositions that are supported by no clear memory of observation. In some cases, this may also involve repeating the original observation supporting the logical proposition, but this is not only time consuming, it is also impossible in certain cases, due to the universe of change making former “realities” no longer “realities” (e.g. how can you repeat the witnessing of alien abduction? you can’t.)
Thus, you cannot logically disprove propositions, but you can disprove them on the ground that they have nothing to do with reality, that they are empty/floating signifiers, singifiers referring to no signified.
When I say that the universe is indeterministic what this means is nothing other than there are no universal laws.
I realize what you mean, but you contradicted yourself.
When using logic (the consistency of language), one must begin with some kind of initial belief, understanding, or knowledge. The consistency of language can then guide toward other ideas that must also be as true as that initial premise (or not).
Logic is merely for maintaining consistency, nothing else. Playing with or altering the definitions of the words breaks the first rule of consistency/logic: “A is A”.
But you are right in that people attempt to fool others and themselves by subtly altering meanings of words so as to give the impression that there is a contradiction when there wasn’t or that there isn’t a contradiction when there was. They do that because it is by contradiction that one knows that something isn’t right somewhere because nothing can be what it isn’t.
That is empirical verification and should always be used to verify conclusions if possible. Empirical verification is not possible for a great many suppositions (such as anything that is supposed about history or extremely distant cosmological situations).
Any logical contradiction IS the disproof of whatever propositions were in consideration. But as you mentioned, one must “check his math” to ensure that he made no mistakes in logic.
Observations are very dependent upon reasoning and thus very susceptible to erroneous presumption. Logic is the only way to ensure that perception was not deception.
Is it that: all impermanent phenomena are subject to causality rather than all phenomena (but even this isn’t perfect).
Why do people say that “there is no such a thing as free will”?
Why do people look down upon the concept of free will?
These questions are directed at our resident Nietzscheans e.g. Fixed. I did already ask them, but noone responded.
Now, I understand very well how the concept of “free will” can be abused to distract people from their own nature. By reminding them that there are other choices they could have made, you can make them too open-minded, and this open-mindness can make them susceptible to overriding their own nature by following some strict code of behavior or by exploring realities they shouldn’t have been exploring. But that does not mean that the problem lies in the concept of “free will”. Free will simply means that you can make any kind of choice given sufficient degree of consciousness. This can be both useful and harmful. It can be useful, for example, if you are using it to resist distraction from your own nature (strengthening your own self.) It can be harmful, on the other hand, if you are using it to distract yourself from your own nature (weakening your own self.) So, why so much hate toward the concept? Is it merely because it was invented – or supposedly invented – by Christians? I don’t know who invented it, but it just seems to be common sense.
“Free will”, by reminding you how many alternative options there are, can stimulate you into becoming unrealistic, but if you’re using it to resist distractions it can also help you to become realistic. And I think that it is instinct, and not will, that makes people unrealistic. It is instinct, not will, that explores forbidden (= sinful?) options.
Will is about restraint, it is about making sure that what you’re doing is what you really want to do, from the bottom of your being. It is about looking deep down within yourself in order to get to know what you really want to do. It is about “what you should be doing right now” but its “should” has an internal rather than external source. Thus, will says “no” to many of the extremely compelling, pleasure-giving options (i.e. instincts) in order to say “yes” to something that is far more important. This is often called “sacrifice” but is it really?
There are plenty of people who’ve found meaning in their existence while believing in a First Cause; for some people that’s what gives it meaning. Or are you referring to an objective meaning, implied by causality? In which case, what is it that the insane are missing?
Why should it be impossible to think that something exists for no reason? I can see the argument for the proposition “everything exists for no reason”, but believing that, say, there is no reason for an unstable atomic nucleus to decay at a certain time, or for a neutrino/antineutrino pair to appear, doesn’t seem to rule out thought.
To say that it’s undeniable, you have to be able to explain everything; or at least prove that everything is correctly explicable. Which seems tough, unless you want to beg the question.
Would it be more plausible just to say that we are all insane irrespective of our acceptance or rejection of causation.
oneliner - if we were all insane, none of us would be. Your claim is not less plausible, however.
Here’s the problem with linking causality with logic: There is no link. Some implications are classified as causal, but this merely means that the intent of the implication is causal. That is, the person making the implication means to say that it is a causal implication. As a logical function, there is no difference between this kind of implication and the other kinds.
I didn’t mean the entire population of the earth, I meant the ILP we who are discussing this at this present point in time (myself included).
That’s insane.
Ahhhh. That is a distinct possibility.
Where is the evidence to support the idea that they are insane?
None given, but let’s discuss the idea anyways. 
My mistake, I forgot to put a ? at the end of the sentence but it doesn’t matter anyway as people often view the ? as an attack or as a challenge rather than a simple ?.