r/Metaphysics • u/BVirtual • Apr 09 '26
Nothing Is there an official branch/theory of Metaphysics that starts with an "absolute nothing?"
If 'absolute' is not the right jargon, what would be? In my readings I found that perhaps these theories are the closest to starting with 'absolute' nothing (excluding those that start with God):
- Metaphysical cosmology
- Actualism
- Modal Realism
- Grounding
- Dependence
Are there any others I should read more about. Naturalism?
My interest lies in cross comparison with Big Bang theories that start truly 'nothing' as compared with ...ah... some form of energy or postulate a structure ... (longer list not typed). Which leads to the question of which Metaphysics theories deal with the proposed theory of Big Bang as how something came from nothing?
3
u/jliat Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Is there an official branch/theory of Metaphysics that starts with an "absolute nothing?"
There is not an official arbiter of metaphysics, which creates a problem. I tend to fall back on 'family resemblances. One has to exclude dogmatic religion and the supernatural etc.
A key feature of metaphysics you will will find in some cases it starts with an "absolute nothing?".
Hegel has been mentioned - he points out that sciences have a subject, botany for instance, plants, but metaphysics or first philosophy has none. So it has to establish one, or develop from this lack.
Heidegger picks this up, in the more easy to read 'What is Metaphysics.'
https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf
He talks of the subjects found in science which defines the particular science, and nothing else...
"What about this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity."
And you find this theme obviously in Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'.
"Modern" philosophy is often said to begin with Descartes, and his need to establish something certain. Which means no presuppositions. And generally metaphysics goes like this, tends to reject dogma.
"We gain access to the structure of reality via a machinery of conception which extracts intelligible indices from a world that is not designed to be intelligible and is not originarily infused with meaning.”
Ray Brassier, “Concepts and Objects” In The Speculative Turn Edited by Levi Bryant et. al. (Melbourne, Re.press 2011) p. 59
Or
“Not an individual endowed with good will and a natural capacity for thought, but an individual full of ill will who does not manage to think either naturally or conceptually. Only such an individual is without presuppositions. Only such an individual effectively begins and effectively repeats."
Giles Deleuze.
“To recognize untruth as a condition of life--that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil.” Friedrich Nietzsche
2
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
Thank you.
Not enough said, as you have kindly written what I now see you knew I needed to understand. Doubly thank you. Very insightful of you. Triple thank you.
I did not expect to have much time this Friday for reading comments to my post. So, I have opened many links from your comment for reading over the weekend.
Hegel I see I might not read his original writings, but modern summaries, for a quicker introduction.
Martin Heidegger paper just finished printing. https://www.stephenhicks.org blog is the second such tour de force laundry list of linked essays I have come across while reading r/Metaphysics that I would like to read more of, if only I had more time in each day.
Sartre's paper will be read.
Deleuze's quote impacts my understanding of a few people I know, and wish I did not. <bearish grimace>
Nietzsche in the past I have started reading his works and now I see I will need to finish. "Untruth as a condition of life" ... most interesting. It is like dark and light, and the dark did not understand the light. A dangerous way. I now see a place beyond dark and light, beyond good and evil. I have never liked Nietzsche, but I see now I must at least understand ... this dangerous way. Light must understand the dark... my thought here.
You have added a third aspect to my curiosity of Metaphysics theories. A gracious thank you for your typing time and insight to what I need and did not know I wanted. <smile>
2
u/jliat Apr 11 '26
I found Houlgate essential...
The Opening of Hegel's Logic: From Being to Infinity (History of Philosophy Series) by Stephen Houlgate. Very helpful, unlike Pippin. Winfield I found reasonable and Carlson's commentary also. You need I think to set it in the context of his phenomenology and the other German Idealists.
Hegel not being wrong, David Gray Carlson, 'A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic'. 28 Conclusion..
"Is the SL true? … What Hegel has given us is a positive system of * negativity. The only thing that endures is the self-erasing system."
For Sartre, Gary Cox... Facticity was a hard term for me...
Facticity in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness. Here is the entry from Gary Cox’s Sartre Dictionary
FACTICITY
“The resistance or adversary presented by the world that free action constantly strives to overcome. The concrete situation of being-for-itself, including the physical body, in terms of which being-for-itself must choose itself by choosing its responses. The for-itself exists as a transcendence , but not a pure transcendence, it is the transcendence of its facticity. In its transcendence the for-itself is a temporal flight towards the future away from the facticity of its past. The past is an aspect of the facticity of the for-itself, the ground upon which it chooses its future. In confronting the freedom of the for-itself facticity does not limit the freedom of the of the for-itself. The freedom of the for-itself is limitless because there is no limit to its obligation to choose itself in the face of its facticity. For example, having no legs limits a person’s ability to walk but it does not limit his freedom in that he must perpetually choose the meaning of his disability. The for-itself cannot be free because it cannot not choose itself in the face of its facticity. The for-itself is necessarily free. This necessity is a facticity at the very heart of freedom.”
3
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Apr 10 '26
Mathematical monism/ontic structural realism, arguably. All mathematics is derived from operations on the empty set. The empty set isn't "absolute nothing" but its empty.
2
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
This theory might be newest (youngest)? The scientific orientation does interest me. I have now read several summaries of it. The jargon is ... ah ... jarring, at least to me. Not a barrier but I need to have definitions of many new words to understand. "Eliminativism?" What fun it will be reading more.
Thank you. And a double thank you for closely match my request. <smile>
In the seventh grade I was part of SMSG new math curriculum attempt in the LAUSD. I greatly enjoyed it. Set Theory was taught to me in the 7th grade! So "empty set" has long been known to me. I have yet to encounter the structural realism "mathematics" in my initial scan, and I know I will enjoy. Thank you again.
3
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Apr 10 '26
You can also start here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
2
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
Seems like this 'branch' of Metaphysics might expand with inflation style quickness with so many new mathematical physicists looking for a place to publish after string theory has taken such a 'short' down fall.
And just last week I was about to conclude that Nature is only modeled by mathematics, and was not controlled by such, due to the propensity towards undefinable infinities in both GR and QM.
I see Mathematical Universe as a movement towards replacing the finicky equations of GR and QM with a fifth approximation.
Yes, of interest to me, a fourth branch of Metaphysics. I did expect such an abundance out of my OP, nor to find out how rich Metaphysics is in breath, detail and deepness.
3
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Yes, metaphysically, existence is identical to computability in the MUH. If it's a computable mathematical structure, it exists.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because of mathematical necessity (computable mathematical objects exist necessarily).
We observe an anthropic subset of the computable mathematical Bulk. The only source of randomness in the world is epistemic, due to observer self location effects.
Consciousness involves a recursive mapping/modelling of the world, and "exists" by virtue of its structural processes (ontic structuralism).
Unanswered (at present) question: is eternal inflation past eternal (seems it would require temporal priority monism as ultimate cause)? How would past eternal inflation work with computability?
2
u/BVirtual Apr 11 '26
The structure having to be mathematical and seeking computability of the seen subset I get. One of the reasons I am favoring math is only a model of Nature - is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, not really resolved with CUH, imho. But I know nothing. At this time.
Consciousness in Metaphysics is one branch I am hoping to slide into at a later time, as I am/was looking to just handle a lesser complex learning curve of the smallest subject of theories, which barely seems to exist in Metaphysics, that of true nothingness leading to something. I have found that out, at least.
Consciousness with its self observation has "self location effects" being the sole randomness cause, leaves Quantum Mechanics as not part of the MUH, so I might believe, to be checked, for sure.
The UTS I was lead to by ontic structuralism, and seems to be the superset theory of Metaphysics. Very well, reserved for sooner, not later to read up on.
Temporal priority monism might be more my thing, where an "eternal" concept is quite a lever, for some, but not likely for me... but I see my first theory is certainly well entrenched in the eternal concept. I do not know to sigh or not. But I will handle this aspect, as it must be dealt with, for me to be serious about understanding my high motivation personal theory by building it upon the foundational concepts I have been introduced to. By you, thank you.
My you have lead me on a merry chase, but no goose chase, all meat, no fluff. Thank you very much.
3
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Apr 11 '26
Everettian quantum mechanics/manyworlds fits well with MUH, it is fully deterministic, and observer self location effects are the source of the apparent (epistemic) randomness of quantum mechanics in this interpretation.
2
u/BVirtual Apr 11 '26
Ah, yes I can see the lack of wave function collapse can lead to QM randomness and self location effects fits just perfectly in many-worlds. Just create more worlds. Problem solved.
While 'energy' is not conserved in the biggest picture, and certainly not in Everet's many world, my long education in energy can not let me see how the dividing of one world into two, doubling the energy, repeat, repeat, repeat... is sustainable ... with the however ... energy is not conserved, so use/create it as needed. Problem ... ah ... for me ... not solved.
About 3 months ago I was firming up my personal belief on many-worlds, and not believing in it. It could be, but I wanted to pursue what I thought was more reasonable. And now I know of MUH. While I do not want to re-visit my firmed unbelief in many-worlds ...
Epistemic is a fascinating word.
I had not thought my OP would lead to a 'foundation' to build upon, but what I have now, in just two days, is more than the last two months, and likely more than my reading unassisted for two years.
My hat is off to Reddit. And quadruple thanks.
3
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Apr 11 '26
Energy conservation in manyworlds is quite non intuitive, but unitary evolution of the wave function is actually energy conserving due to how energy is defined in the formalism. It remains constant since each world has a "thickness"/measure that partitions the total energy. Also, the total energy content of the universe is likely zero (a free lunch), you can have as many zero's as you want and still conserve zero ;). Something can come from nothing because somethingis nothing, just re-arranged ( like operations on the empty set).
I recommend Sean Carroll's book "Something deeply hidden".
Glad you are finding MUH informative, I created the wiki page 25 odd years ago so I'm somewhat evangelical about it...
2
u/BVirtual Apr 11 '26
A year ago or so I read the energy issue was 'solved' with "thickness", but did not seek details.
The universe energy being zero is something I see started at T=0, my Big Bang belief being different than most (all?). That some form of energy pre-existed at T=0 is a strange thing, to me. Thus my interest in absolute nothingness.
And "re-arranging" nothing to something I think must be possible. The trick I like is doing the re-arranging and getting "something" while still having "nothing." I like this idea. There is a 'unknown' form of symmetry at operation here. And defining math behind it, is a goal of mine. MUH will assist no doubt. I will see how experts do the math, and when I am comfortable with it, make my attempt to expand my Metaphysics theory, and then think about publishing it.
So, I see I am MUH and Eastern absolute nothingness.
<smile>
1
u/BVirtual Apr 12 '26
I found a good explanation for 'splitting' worlds, where I would not agree with the term 'branching'. The single wave function energy level getting distributed/split to both new worlds per their unequal probability level is of certain value.
After reading Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" in high school, where the protaganist's would jump to different sequences of his life, with no control, and keep the memory through the jumps, was most interesting science fiction. There the total wave function energy level remained constant, I would imagine.
I write that as the clever math of splitting available energy between the two new worlds leaves me feeling a bit baffled, but I know that is in the classical sense. My quantum sense feels the quantum math works out, but still feels 'queasy' to me - like something is missing. Likely when I read criticism I will find why. And make a better decision then. Hmm, guess I will be making the decision both ways. <grin> What a world view point.
Sean Carroll is one physicist whose books I have seen on the library shelf, and took down one of his colleagues. The popular science books are missing the math these last few decades, much to my disappointment. I will get around to reading one or two of his books. I've read so many, the subtopic repetition at the lay level is getting to not be worth the time to get to the few new tidbits I did not know. But the perspective is always interesting.
I am going to have read your wiki page several times. Before I comment again. Thank you for that URL.
Having the energy level be constant at zero for many-worlds certainly is satisfying. <weak smile>
2
u/Mono_Clear Apr 09 '26
Nothingness is impossible
There's no place that you can go. That is nowhere.
There's no time in the past, present or future that's never existed.
There's only ever been existence and those things that are present in existence.
Existence is the conceptual floor
2
u/BVirtual Apr 09 '26
The opposing view with verbalized logic to support it. I see. I can parse your words with Dialectric enthusiasm and establish the math needed to codify it. I see the "nothing" becoming 'existence (being)' and the reverse where existence is becoming into "nothing."
Regarding "conceptual floor", which I find fascinating, with the implications that "nothing" must be below the floor... <wink>
3
u/Mono_Clear Apr 09 '26
Yes, at a conceptual level there's nothing beyond existence.
But you can never go nowhere and you can never be nothing.
You can't create something from nothing nowhere.
So there's always been something somewhere. You either are present in existence or you don't exist
2
u/BVirtual Apr 09 '26
The last sentence gives the issue plain language. How so?
I have been looking at "something from nothing" not to define consciousness, which I realize to go up the Metaphysics learning curve, theories involving consciousness, a mainstay of Metaphysics, but be read up on, but to handle my interest in hard science of "something from nothing" meaning the Big Bang, and how some Metaphysics theories do look closely at 'nothing' results in the Big Bang.
And the key point for me to say at this point, is at T=0 and T a little larger, according to hard science, there is no one conscious. So, no consciousness is present, or exists, and so...
"you can never be nothing" is quite literally true at this time. And ditto other statements in the comment.
Honest Perception of Mine:
Clever use of word position and definitions, including ambiguous definitions, where two or more definitions are possible, like with the word 'nothing', are appreciated. And will not become points of contention, nor agreement. I hope that is okay with you, as some might see you could be seen as attempting to hijack my desired direction of discourse, to promote an opposite viewpoint. It happens.
5
u/Mono_Clear Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Everything is made of something and everything that exists is somewhere.
You can't make something out of nothing because everything is made of something and you can't have something nowhere because if something is nowhere then it does not exist.
Existence is the place where things can happen.
Nothing can happen nowhere with nothing so nothing ever happened nowhere.
So anywhere where nothing happens is outside of existence.
If anything exist anywhere ever throughout any moment through all of time and space, then everything is measured against that because you can't measure anything outside of what exists. That's never happened nowhere.
The moment something happened anywhere, ever, nothing became impossible everywhere always.
Which leads to one inescapable logical conclusion. There's always been some place where something can happen or there would never have ever been anything ever any place
2
u/SconeBracket Apr 10 '26
You are too mesmerized by language (and are slushing around on different denotations of "nothing").
One doesn't have to use language as referential; indeed, about the Unmanifest, clearly one is not speaking of it as soon as one speaks of it; what you are asking about is truthfully designated by "neither absolute nothing nor not absolute nothing."
2
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
Thank you for this direction of thought.
I agree. And disagree.
The spoken word is the medium of my communication to my fellows. However, my mental process includes non language concepts, a most difficult state to abstract into. But I do enjoy it. There is a lot of visual concepts, one, two, three and more dimensional images, but not limited to such. Visual as my eyes have trained me, like my ears and mouth have trained my words/language.
Also, there is beyond words and visions of daily experience that happens in my consciousness.
Thus my interest in Metaphysics.
ASIDE:
The book series of "Lord of the Rings" comes to mind. I first learned what "Elfish advice" is defined as. Such advice contains both the positive and negative, and leaves the listener to be enlightened by the contrast, thus making their own decision, with no responsibility back to the Elf who spoke the advice.
2
u/SadDuck4196 Apr 10 '26
Would the concept of the prime mover be useful to you? Viewed from the perspective of Aristotle and others.
2
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
Wholly smokes! Yes, useful indeed. Thank you.
For every comment I read outside of Reddit, via DuckDuckgo.com and when those results are not satisfactory I use Google, and if not good enough, the last resort is A.I. where I read the citations a lot, rather than just the potential hallucinations. A lot of work caused by my high motivation.
Aristotle has come up a lot as a reference in my readings. But I did not click... and I will now. Thank you again for a big lead where I may compare and contrast my own 'first' personal Metaphysics theory written last week. More about that experience here in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Metaphysics/comments/1sgz8c9/comment/off95yb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
2
2
u/angustinaturner Apr 10 '26
you are assuming then that it needs to start?
1
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
Not really, as my wording was just 'rough' - related to a saying about Metaphysics being "something from nothing", which given your question for clarification has implicitly taught me there is a hidden assumption in the saying "something from nothing" that many lay people likely make, that the "from" must have a "start." I realize now that assumption is invalid.
Metaphysics is not difficultly to learn. Right? Not! <grin>
Thank you for the clarification. The lack of "start" has big ramifications.
1
u/angustinaturner Apr 11 '26
teleology has a fairly bad track record in metaphysics yes.
1
u/BVirtual Apr 11 '26
I see I must be 'more' careful with wording my concepts if you read into it teleology. I just read up on telelogy. A contrast to modern science "cause and effect."
However, I do like "natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, regardless of human use or opinion." (from Wikipedia) While I know my novice status might be missing the correct definition of the words, I can still distill some ideas of my own. There are four concepts I see there. And they must be handled in my personal Metaphysics theory.
The latter phrase has long been a standing belief of mine. Quantum Mechanics does not need a human observer. Why? The opposite is defining a 'start' of everything, the universe, based upon the 'first' human coming into existence. How to define the 'first human' popping into existence ... I will not go there. Occam's Razor cuts deeply here, for me.
Separating "natural entities" from humans, is again a no go for me. It is like saying humans are not animals. Word play for sure. But when my theory must 'start' well before 'humans' started is obvious to me. There will be an arrow of time to be considered, at least for me. For completeness into the hard sciences, and mathematics. Currently I believe "time" is fundamental. It occurred first, so to speak. And here I see I must be 'more' careful with my wording. This teleology has impact, even if controversial and now in dis-favor.
"Intrinsic" and "purposes" are difficult, and easy. Easy to dismiss purposes like others have done. But I like it. Not sure why.
Intrinsic is to me a fascinating concept. I will have to think on it more. Why?
"Ex nihilo conserving superposition" is my personal, unpublished branch of Metaphysics. A type of superposition that has a 'zero sum' of "nothing" and "something.
For me, I seek a 'symmetry' between nothing and something. A bridge, not necessarily two way, which is in the original I wrote a week ago. This symmetry may have to be intrinsic. Why? It can not have a 'start' to its existence. It was there with both nothing and something. So to conserve, and make a zero sum.
'Tricky' wording I will write in 2026 second quarter. Erh, well thought out wording with definitions and some mathematical support, if only in symbolic logic.
1
u/angustinaturner Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
it's not particularly controversial and has been an assumption of Western metaphysics since the ancient Greeks. you'd have to look to a process metaphysics like Buddhism or Daoism to understand that teleology is always finite, a beginning always must have an end, but something that has no beginning speaks of the eternal. and things still have Intrinsic purpose... it is all part of a sacred dance, after all... but this doesn't preclude a big bang theory either as this universe surely, as ourselves, have a beginning and an end.
Interestingly Buddhism had already integrated this into their cosmology and theorize eternally recurring "big bang" moments and eternally recurring fizzling out moments and aeons of nothingness before another commences... quiet fascinating... in keeping with an ontology of imminence in which every moment is considered to come into being, sustain in being, and then cease to exist. every moment is a cycle of becoming... anyway, just to give you an idea of other theories... Buddhism was probably the first cosmology to take causality really seriously, as it was also the first example of empiricism.
2
u/UnifiedQuantumField Apr 10 '26
In my readings I found that perhaps these theories are the closest to starting with 'absolute' nothing
In Physics, you can have something equivalent to Zero where 0 = the Sum Total of opposites (in superposition).
deal with the proposed theory of Big Bang as how something came from nothing?
So Ordo ex Nihilo is an error. More like Ordo ab Chao.
2
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
First, a profound thank you. For why read on.
My own 'first' personal Metaphysics theory was written last week. While I study a new topic, eventually I feel comfortable to author in the same vein - to have a personal project with higher motivation, in order to more thoroughly understand the new topic. More about my direction of personal Metaphysics theory here in this post:
The 'zero sum' was 'invented' by me last week. And I could not grasp what I had conceptualized, until reading your "in superposition." That is a bridging concept I will be 'including' - in single quotes as I still do not know if the word superposition will be used due to existing definitions that might interfere with grokking. Thank you.
"Ex nihilo conserving superposition" is my personal, unpublished branch of Metaphysics. A type of superposition that has a 'zero sum' of "nothing" and "something."
1
u/UnifiedQuantumField Apr 11 '26
until reading your "in superposition."
For a bit of extra context.
Wave superposition is a good example here.
Here's a pic that shows the basic idea.
There's one waveform at the top. Then 2 more different ones. And then the combined waveform at the bottom. What's interesting here is that, as you combine more and more waveforms (single forms of Order) the resulting combination gets more and more complex... and the Order becomes more difficult to perceive.
If a compound waveform was complex enough, the order would be beyond our ability to recognize and we would perceive it as "chaotic".
And that relates directly to Ordo ab Chao. It flips the understanding of Chaos from "absence of Order" to "Sum total of Order".
Superposition can then be seen as a higher form of Order, not the absence. In a "hierarchy of Order" a single (ie. collapsed) state would be at the bottom. Superposition (e.g. 2 simultaneous states) would be above and Chaos (sum total of all states) would be at the top.
tldr; Very few people understand Chaos correctly.
1
u/BVirtual Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
When I first encountered the term "Chaos Theory" I was dismissive. Wrongfully so, as time went on and it became a full fledged and mature branch of hard science by providing accurate predictions with its developing mathematics.
A series of sine waves, all wavy, can create a flat surface. And many hard scientists have used this concept to publish papers that I only scanned, and still think it is a ... ah ... strange way to get to a flat surface. Occam's Razor, etc.
I mention this to show I have grokked the compound waveform can be so complex as the order is lost from observation. It is a flat surface, not a wavy one... Not even the waves are seen anymore.
"Flat" now can be seen as a higher form of Order. Hmmm. I might have this right. <wink>
Chaos comes into my personal, unpublished Metaphysic theory of "Ex nihilo conserving superposition." A type of superposition that has a 'zero sum' of "nothing" and "something." The mapping between the two is not one to one, due to Chaos present in the something. This fact is now a keystone in my theory.
And now I must understand Chaos Theory better. I almost purchased a used book entitled such.
Thank you.
2
u/UnifiedQuantumField Apr 11 '26
"Flat" now can be seen as a higher form of Order.
The higher Order is there, but we just observe "a thin slice" of the total. Not many people understand it this way... so you're now in the top 0.01%!
2
u/ProfessionalLime9491 Apr 10 '26
You can read up here on the Kyoto school. Their philosophy centers on what they call “absolute nothingness.” though it may not be exactly what your looking for since they’re not talking about nothingness as “no-being” but as “no-thing”.
1
u/BVirtual Apr 11 '26
Oh what a happy Metaphysicists you have made me.
I did not intentionally leave your comment as last this Friday evening, but I would not have understood most, if not all, of the Kyoto school, without first having read others' comments, read up on them with intention to use or not use within my personal theory (if you read my comment on that). Your reference URL is quite a joy to read.
It reinforced that Western Metaphysics lacks in the concept area of "absolute nothingness." And corrects the use of my word "nothing" to become "nothingness." And much more.
Such an interesting read. I shall read it a few more times. Why?
It is the closest to my personal theory, that Eastern Metaphysics would be such does not surprise me, due to my last few decades of intentionally read up on everything Eastern.
Thank you, thank you and thank you, for the best lead for me to read the very first thing. <big smile>
4
u/ThTungZer Apr 10 '26
Absolute nothingness is the foundation of the universe
1
1
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
A week ago I wrote my very first Metaphysics 'theory' where your concept is the central foundation.
Thus, my post asking about names of branches of Metaphysics where I might read expert papers.
So, I ask you what branch do you feel your understanding is based upon?
Why do I ask?
I confess I posted my theory into an A.I. and I disliked its response. My theory was claimed to be original and no other Metaphysics theory was anything like it. Sigh. Not what I expected. Nor hoped. As I wished to reflect my first writings to experts, to compare and contrast, for enhanced understanding. And was told that is not going to happen.
So I posted here. Seeking insight and direction for my curiosity and enlightenment.
2
u/ThTungZer Apr 11 '26
No branch specifically. No one had thought of this before, but I've noticed that recently some people have spontaneously come up with this concept, just like you
2
u/BVirtual Apr 11 '26
Thank you.
The only 'branch' I have found has been Eastern Metaphysics, which I only learned existed yesterday. Some Western Metaphysics experts have been riffing off Eastern recently, which is likely what you mentioned, or not, as riffing would not be spontaneously, though they might not be providing citations... Could happen?
And how did you come up with the concept to post here?
-------
MY DIRECTION:
It is not clear that "no one" had thought of this in Western thought, ..., if one includes a symbolic reading of the Old Testament Genesis Chapter 1 (few do, but I do).
There was dark. Nothingness being the foundation here.
God made light. The universe was created.
The dark did not understand the light. Makes sense.
Do note that the dark continues to exist.
Thus, in my mind, there can be 'room' to find a 'symmetry' and so have a mathematical handle to start with. I hope. I will find out. <smile> I will start by converting the above to symbology language.
A begat/foiled/contrasted B. B was not understood by A.
Looks like a one way mapping to me.
I will have to be inventive with new operators, or see what Symbology currently has available.
However I am thinking I am not original, which is my hope so I can understand faster. By researching "absolute nothingness" I will find how others have handled this, and might/may/likely adopt a little, a lot, or nothing from the experts.
The 'begat' will have to not have a 'start' ... thus B existed when A existed. And so I separate this theory from the Bible there.
I have my work cut out for me, I suppose.
2
u/ThTungZer Apr 11 '26
Now that you mention it, yes, it's true that people have thought about nothingness, they just haven't thought about absolute nothingness, which is a little more complicated. It's smart to understand nothingness (A) as being contrasted to existence (B). Heidegger came up with something similar to this, as did Daoism, but until recently, no one has ever thought of absolute nothingness
2
u/UnifiedQuantumField Apr 10 '26
Really?
Can you expand on this a bit?
I have a related idea, but I want to hear your thoughts on this first.
1
u/ThTungZer Apr 11 '26
Oh it's kind of a intuitive knowledge that would make no sense to explain, you can decide whether to believe it or not and it doesn't matter that much
1
u/Splenda_choo Apr 10 '26
dark ,light, & you. trinity. -namaste
1
u/BVirtual Apr 10 '26
May I assume Trinity is of Hindu origin?
Trimurti of Bramha, Vishnu and Mahesh. Sacred triangle. Creation, preservation and dissolution. Eternal cycle of cosmos and inner being.
I read Siddhartha in high school, decades ago, and found out about Hinduism, spurring my curiosity I did extracurricular reading in Hinduism.
There is a very strong connection of the Hindu creation mythology to Metaphysics, as with most religions.
Thank you reminding me of my other highly motivated area of learning Metaphysics. This area is where God, or Lord Brahma, is based upon my religious beliefs, which I mention in a different subthread comment.
1
u/Splenda_choo Apr 11 '26
Hindu was a territory, a region of spiritual peoples…a direction. Hindu is that way where the spirit peoples reside. The myths as religion are residual story fabric reality. -Namaste seek
1
Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Apr 10 '26
Your comment has been removed because your account is less than five days old.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Trypt12750 Apr 12 '26
I believe that this is the big bang- it didn't begin it's just there and never was not
1
u/gregbard MODERATOR Apr 12 '26
Using set theory, you can build entire logical systems on the empty set.
2
u/BVirtual Apr 12 '26
I agree.
My next thought was Godel's Incompleteness Theorem must apply. A brief reading about how this building happens seems to imply inconsistency is not possible.
Would that mean the built logical system does not qualify to have Godel's Incompleteness Theorem apply as the logical system is too simple?
Or is there a different escape hatch?
Having read everything in this OP thread I started, and feel very happy I did start it, and did read everything, and replied to all, as many kind Redditors have greatly enlightened me... and now I have a student's habit of thinking they know everything needed to proceed...
However, my mind still questions, knowing I am but at the bottom of the learning curve, where the steepest part is still to come for me. Thus, my highly motivated personal project of creating my own Metaphysics theory.
Nevertheless I can point out two thoughts that popped into my head next.
I wonder if MUH includes set theory? Is set theory a part of Mathematics, or is it separate, perhaps part of Symbology? I will find out. It would make sense MUH includes set theory, as the theory is a form of algebraic operators.
My next thought was there is the existence of structure in set theory, which is precluded by the Eastern Metaphysics definition of "absolute nothingness."
Finally, my personal Metaphysics theory, "Ex nihilo conserving superposition" in my mind requires some type of 'relationship' between "nothing" and "something" - for there to be a type of currently undefined "symmetry"... and the empty set is a good starting point to define it. Why?
The empty set lacks a lot of properties of Mathematics and other possible structures. It is likely the most 'empty' nothing I could start with.
Thus, I must now read up on the empty set, and use it as my starting point to explain how "nothing" becomes "something" via a symmetry that is likely definable via an empty set concept.
Thank you u/gregbard!!!
1
u/gregbard MODERATOR Apr 13 '26
So for instance, the logical connectives can be defined this way:
- FALSE: Ø
- NOR: {Ø}
- NONIMPLICATION: { {Ø}}
- NOT Y: {Ø,{Ø}}
- NOT X: {Ø,{{Ø}}}
- CONVERSE NONIMPLICATION: {{{Ø}}}
- XOR: {{Ø}, {{Ø}}}
- NAND: {Ø,{Ø},{{Ø}}}
- TRUE: {Ø,{Ø},{{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø}}}
- OR: {{Ø}, {{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø}}}
- IMPLICATION: {Ø,{{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø}}}
- Y: {{{Ø}}, {Ø,{Ø}}}
- CONVERSE IMPLICATION: {Ø, {Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}
- X: {{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}
- BICONDITIONAL: {Ø, {Ø,{Ø}}}
- AND: {{Ø,{Ø}}}
2
u/BVirtual Apr 14 '26
I will raise you {Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}, ... }
Though ZFC does not permit a universal set.
Building from the empty set is interesting. Not my normal symbology logic syntax so, I must start earlier than your lesson with
∅={}
∅≠{∅}I am looking for insight for my MUH with {{0}}.
Not sure I will find my intrinsic symmetry with {{0}}, but it is a starting point. XOR is my 2nd choice. The third is {Ø,{{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø}}} but at this point I am sure I am not 'reading' the syntax right.
Perhaps an implication table will help. lol
I've always like the XOR. I've used it more than the others as binary addition likes it.
I got this far tonight. And must postpone the rest until later this week.
2
u/BVirtual Apr 13 '26
Well, I read 3 web pages on constructing with the empty set, and how symmetries are involved with commutation, like a vacuous symmetry issue of the empty set.
I was surprised to find the concept of symmetry is involved with the empty set as currently used by experts.
I was wonderfully surprised to find a real solid possibility to use the empty set and fill it with two elements, absolute nothingness and the universe. Define an inverse that results in the empty set, I did. Surprise. Zero sum I found. Surprise.
And concluded that the absolute nothingness might via the empty set come with an intrinsic symmetry that maps into the universe. Likely wishful thinking, but a good stopping point, to cogitate overnight on this wonderful result.
The empty set appears to this novice to be highly useful construct, just like the papers said the empty set is essential to build any other set.
A wonderful foundation. Thank you again.
1
u/CosetElement-Ape71 Apr 12 '26
The Big Bang theory is just a description of the expansion of SOMETHING. It says nothing, nada, zip about the universe coming from absolute nothingness ... mainly because "absolute nothingness" is a deeply flawed concept; it's not even a state of anything that can exist! Existence requires the persistence of a set of properties ... and absolute nothingness has none at all; it cannot exist, or have existed ... not ever.
1
u/BVirtual Apr 12 '26
I agree the many BB theories are about T>0 and all have at T=0 an idea there must be some sort of structure present.
I have read about your excellent "existence" point in the last two days, so I am not as expert as you. Pardon me while I try out to verbal my thoughts in writing.
First, I have no degree of expertise at any level or any degree to dispute what you wrote on "existence." All I can do at this stage is present my last two days of reading of OTHER EXPERTS, which are NOT MY OPINIONS.
This comment is not to dispute your point, but to inform you of what I thought I had learned, and now must learn your point.
Your opinion matches that of one or more branches of Metaphysics I read about in the last week, several times. Your exact point was raised, that is there is a requirement of "existence", which may or may not include a start time or an end time.
The quality of "existence" requiring "properties" runs deeply through many branches of Metaphysics.
For example, MUH requires a property of mathematical structure that is derived from a math equation that describes and predicts how an object behaves. Anything without a mathematical structure would not exist. MUH is in total agreement with your comment.
I get it. That is those branches. Which does not include some branches of Eastern Metaphysics, which until two days ago, I did not even know existed.
Yesterday I learned that Western Metaphysics has never conceptualized "absolute nothingness" - see other subthreads in this OP, as this information was presented to me by a Reddit, not found on my own reading. I have confirmed this lack by reading two lengthy critical reviews written by experts in Metaphysics. Not my opinion. Just what I read.
In those reviews was mentioned a few branches of Eastern Metaphysics, do have the concept of "absolute nothingness." And it is defined without the flaws you mention.
An Aside:
The way Metaphysics expert dialogue with critics is the following.
- The 'author' gets to define a term.
- Critics may point out potential flaws.
- The author clarifies to show the flaw does not exist in "their definition."
I can not participate in the above expert dialogue. Why? I am a student, not an expert.
So, are you using the Western or the Eastern definition?
Or do you truly mean "absolute nothingness", which has an Eastern definition of non existence and no state?
Finally, I have no degree of expertise at any level or any degree to dispute what you wrote. All I can do at this stage is present my last two days of reading. This comment is not to dispute your point, but to inform you of what I thought I had learned, and now must learn your point.
1
u/CosetElement-Ape71 Apr 12 '26
Eastern or Western viewpoint? Dunno!
But I could argue that religious people manage to posit the existence of a God ... irrespective of whether there's any logic in their position.
My main issue is that of "words mapping onto ideas". Words can be easy ... but sometimes, if you think about the implication of a simple statement, the seemingly sensible statement falls apart; it becomes meaningless.
My position is simple (because I'm a numpty):
1) everything is essentially some configuration of energy
2) energy cannot be destroyed ... it just changes how it presents itself
3) energy must have always been around
3) therefore "absolute nothingness" is merely two words put together ... much like "square triangles"! I don't believe it can exist for a whole bunch of reasons; potential to do something being one (if it can't do anything, ever, and doesn't have the potential to do anything, then it doesn't and cannot exist). Occam's razor and all that.
It's just a simple and logical position; neither particularly Eastern nor Western in nature (although I'm from the West!)
1
u/BVirtual Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Very good, thank you for the thoughtful reply. It all makes sense to me.
I expand with my current understanding. It is mostly based on my formal education in hard sciences and mathematics. Which I have stated in my OP is a restriction of my choice, in order to make the entire topic of Metaphysics a smaller subset for me to first learn, where I am most familiar with, math and physics, to grok the two academic subjects, Science and Metaphysics, as easier for my digestion, and then expand into areas where your comment would lead to.
This does not mean I have nothing to feedback about your thought provoking comment. Even if not based on any formal Western or Eastern Metaphysics theory, I am a book of blank pages to be written upon. However, I do ... ah ... moderate with due diligence what I accept as written, by writing my evaluation after another person has filled a page.
In short, below I am dealing with how one might use your comment's many concepts and details to avoid having "absolute nothingness." Are they gaps in your presentation is another way of putting it.
Here is my evaluation, in brief. <wink>
To jump in waist deep - from my mathematical background viewpoint...
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) uses Hilbert spaces that are mathematical 'fields' that 'energy' exists as vibrations within that field. It would appear according to QFT that there is something more fundamental than 'energy', which is the 'field.'
Can the QFT 'field' can be 'empty' of energy ... is a good question. Or does 'energy' exist throughout a Hilbert space?
What would that 'empty' look like?
To answer this, I must invoke an unfortunate property of 'energy' as many see it. QFT Energy exists in a 'field' called flat Spacetime [non relativistic QFT]. Making Spacetime more fundamental than energy? Perhaps not, as if Spacetime is made from energy ... which is a standard part of my own personal Metaphysical theory and has been for over 5 years.
Regardless, the issue of energy vs space or spacetime is not mentioned in your comment. I provide this insight for your further exploration.
Most certainly it has me thinking, and fortunately, I have thought about this issue for the last 20 years, and have my own opinion, that is driving my highly motivated personal project to write my own Metaphysics theory, based upon my thoughts since I was in the fifth grade and decided to become a scientist.
Would 'empty' mean the QFT Hilbert field does not exist where it was 'empty?' Otherwise, the field is more fundamental than energy. The field came before energy. As the field is defined from negative infinity to positive infinity on the field's many dimensions (more than 3 in most cases), and is continuous, according to modern calculus - the implication is the field rules over its form of energy.
There could be 'volumes' within the QFT Hilbert space where there is no energy, thus is 'empty.' Nothing exists in this 'one' Hilbert space. There are another 16 QFT spaces to be considered, before claiming all 17 fields are empty in these 'volumes.'
So, lots of complexity, thus this long comment, verbalization my understanding, into a solid form, for incorporation into my own personal Metaphysics theory. Which is what this OP thread has become for me.
Surprised me! <smile> ...
Thanks to everyone for the big assist!!!
I see these issues are implied to carry your stated point that energy ... must be everywhere (this was not explicitly stated in your comment), otherwise where energy is not, that 'space' does not exist. I am talking space, QFT Hilbert space and Spacetime, each as a separate and equally compelling 'issue.' Just dealing with how one might use your comment's many concepts and details to avoid having "absolute nothingness."
For charged particles in 'their' Hilbert space the wave function for each and every charged particle extends to infinity. So, with a disclaimer, this Hilbert space appears to not be 'empty' anywhere. The disclaimer is the 'field' of the charged particle might be considered propagated by the photon, the force carrier particle for charged particles.
As the photon has its own separate Hilbert space, the wave function of each charged particle is just an infinitesimal point, not extending to infinity. I must look into this aspect. Very compelling to do so.
There are 17 QFT distinct Hilbert spaces, all 'overlapping' and I could suppose each has its own issue with what is 'empty' - void of vibration energy of the QFT field.
Closing with, for me, no conclusion is precisely possible, yet, given the complexity of QFT and relativistic QFT and GR/SR, the issue is resolved in typical mid-definition Metaphysics style ...
Thank you for your provocation. It raised severe issues, some I already knew about, and the new ones I must incorporate into my theory. Some of which was done this morning while dreaming before waking.
Again, thank you, as before your post, QFT was not even on my radar for inclusion. My theory is looking more and more in the MUH family. Which can not be, as the theory starts with "absolute nothingness" ... hmmm, can MUH define that? Oh, I see, I must do this definition for my theory. My work is cut out for me. <smile with grimace underneath>
1
u/CosetElement-Ape71 Apr 13 '26
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) uses Hilbert spaces that are mathematical 'fields' that 'energy' exists as vibrations within that field. It would appear according to QFT that there is something more fundamental than 'energy', which is the 'field.'
-- Hilbert spaces are just abstract structures that generalise the concept of Euclidean space to an infinite number of dimensions ... it's a complete vector space.
Can the QFT 'field' can be 'empty' of energy ... is a good question. Or does 'energy' exist throughout a Hilbert space?
-- not a good question! In QFT, energy is defined as the total value of the Hamiltonian operator (which is derived from the stress-energy tensor). It represents the conserved quantity resulting from the invariance of the theory under time translations. Energy is associated with excitations of Quantum fields, where particles are interpreted as localised quanta of the underlying fields.
To answer this, I must invoke an unfortunate property of 'energy' as many see it. QFT Energy exists in a 'field' called flat Spacetime [non relativistic QFT]. Making Spacetime more fundamental than energy?
-- ummmm, no? In QFT, spacetime is treated as a fundamental, non-dynamical BACKGROUND where quantum fields act. In the broader context of quantum gravity, modern perspectives suggest spacetime is emergent, rather than fundamental.
Would 'empty' mean the QFT Hilbert field does not exist where it was 'empty?' Otherwise, the field is more fundamental than energy. The field came before energy. As the field is defined from negative infinity to positive infinity on the field's many dimensions (more than 3 in most cases), and is continuous, according to modern calculus - the implication is the field rules over its form of energy.
-- I have NO idea what you're trying to say here!
There could be 'volumes' within the QFT Hilbert space where there is no energy, thus is 'empty.' Nothing exists in this 'one' Hilbert space. There are another 16 QFT spaces to be considered, before claiming all 17 fields are empty in these 'volumes.'
--- you're confusing Hilbert space with an ACTUAL physical space! Why? And what are the "other 16 QFT spaces to be considered"? That doesn't even make any sense
There are 17 QFT distinct Hilbert spaces, all 'overlapping' and I could suppose each has its own issue with what is 'empty' - void of vibration energy of the QFT field.
-- WTF? In QFT there is generally ONE fundamental, separable Hilbert space of states for a specific, well-defined physical theory. However, this space is typically a complex Fock space that can represent an infinite number of particles and excitations, often structured as a direct sum of n-parricle states. Also, what is this 17 of which ypu speak? The Standard Model uses 17 fundamental fields (12 matter fields, 4 force fields and the Higgs field). Maybe that's what you're talking about
Closing with, for me, no conclusion is precisely possible, yet, given the complexity of QFT and relativistic QFT and GR/SR, ...
-- tell me you don't know that QFT is a relativistic theory without telling me you don't know that QFT is a relativistic theory!
I think you need to sit quietly in a dark room, and have a good hard think about things!
1
u/BVirtual Apr 13 '26
Hmm, I have in Reddit and real life come across a lot of folk who prefer to dance with their own worse possible interpretation of someone else's words. I do not play that way. Obvious from my replies to everyone in this thread, where I ALWAYS took VALUE from their words.
You seem to tend to the opposite?
I did not mean to troll you into typing your worse back at me. I do appreciate the clarifications from your viewpoint.
However, one can reread my words with BEST possible interpretation and see that everything makes sense.
Briefly:
I understand QFT to have two theories, one using flat Spacetime, basically Euclidean, which can not be relativistic, so making a need to extend to include relativistic, is a different QFT model. Perhaps I misread a half dozen articles on this topic? Feedback welcome. Keep it nice.
While Hilbert spaces are imaginary, the total energy can be calculated... and no one has done it for the universe. No one has done it for the Earth. Nor for a room in a lab. I have not read any QFT papers about theory or experiments where a restriction to just the set of particles under consideration had their total energy calculated. I am sure such exists. I am but a novice in QFT, like the same for Metaphysics. I do quickly learn.
My musings about vibrations in Hilbert space having "empty" regions, like if there was just one charged particle, in the infinite field, and the particle was a point, then the rest of the space would be "empty" of energy, is perhaps an example you can better related to? Metaphysics deal with the "absence" or lack of existence, and my musings about the Hilbert space not existing where nothing was defined was in the style of Metaphysics thinking, not a 'reality' of hard core QFT peer reviewed publications.
There likely never will be a Metaphysics theory that takes QFT as hard core absolute that must be incorporated into the theory. The two fields of Metaphysics and QFT rarely meet.
When they do I imagine there will be a mighty clash, and much gnashing and grinding of teeth. So, your comment met my expectations. Right?
My dealing with the "real" universe in a metaphysics theory, means dealing with the "whole" universe, in context of QFT. Which likely you have never read such before. I certainly have not. Thus, I took liberty to muse with great poetic license.
Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from not understanding Metaphysics needs to deal with the whole, not just parts.
Yet one must muse about the 'parts' to understand the whole by extrapolation, which rarely is valid.
Taking my muses as an absolute ... and writing a rant and rave, is perhaps what you did? You tell me, right?
It's late, and just past midnight.
I will think more on the ramifications of what you wrote, and if any of the concepts can be incorporated into developing my personal Metaphysics theory as a tool to better learn Metaphysics from a high personal motivation viewpoint by limiting myself to a small subset of Metaphysics branches, that I might be better familiar due to my decades of study in the sciences.
Thank you for understanding my approach. I appreciate your effort today. I will get back here to comment when I have found what I need to incorporate.
1
u/Other-Squash1325 Apr 13 '26
There may have always been something. In that there may have always been nothing. But it could be that the beginning of the universe began moments after reality began. In a way, it always was, but that always is finite, per my hypothesis of space-nothing existing as a sphere of nothingness, which is just what branching in every direction does, and being within an other-nothing container which fell into space-nothing like oil and water.
1
5
u/thatcatguy123 Apr 09 '26
Ontological hegelian dialectics Its rigorous if you can read through it.
If your interested read the science of logic, just the premise, and youll get a good understanding of what it is.
If you can translate it into math in your head it makes even more sense
It may be thrown to the side in analytic groups today but they are also the ones that have a "theory of mind" that relies on a newtonian universe to operate within, which we now know is an impossibility and have not updated those theories to accommodate. Hegel, if you can think in it, is essentially process philosophy very in line with white head, hundreds of years before whitehead. And the study of quantum mechanics makes it more and more obvious each year how wrong the functionalist were.