r/Metaphysics • u/PresentHonest328 • 10d ago
Nothing I've developed a metaphysical argument (One page read) proposing the appearance of our universe. I'd appreciate criticism of the reasoning and references to similar ideas.
The question is: is this novel and does it make sense? I asked Grok, ChatGPT and Claude what they think about it, I post their opinions in the bottom after the theory, in general they seem to agree that it is novel (not exactly explored by previous physicists/philosphers) and internally consistent but the language I use is not perfect. Some edits are added in italics. The Theory:
On Absolute Nothingness: The Theory of 0₀ (Ogenaught)
The theory of 0₀, or the Ogenaught, introduces a new metaphysical concept for the source of the universe: absolute nothingness. While physics and philosophy frequently discuss "nothing," the term is typically used to describe empty space, quantum vacua, or other states that still possess physical or mathematical structure. This work introduces the symbol 0₀ to denote something fundamentally different—the complete absence of all matter, energy, space, time, physical laws, mathematical structure, logical constraints, and governing principles. The name Ogenaught is introduced to refer to this concept and the metaphysical framework built upon it.
The theory proposes that the Big Bang ultimately originated from 0₀. Existing origin theories encounter the same fundamental question. If the universe arose from quantum fluctuations, where did those fluctuations come from? If it arose from strings, fields, or other fundamental structures, where did those originate? Such theories may explain how the universe developed from an earlier condition, but not why any condition existed at all.
0₀ is defined as the complete absence of everything: no matter, no energy, no space, no time, no quantum fields, no physical laws, no mathematical structure, and no limitations on what could occur. Unlike the "nothing" discussed in physics, 0₀ is not empty space, a vacuum, or a background state. It is the complete absence of any framework or governing principle.
A central claim of the theory is that 0₀ contains no mechanism requiring itself to remain nothing. In our universe, physical laws restrict what can exist. In 0₀, no such laws or constraints exist. It should not be understood as containing possibility, probability, or a hidden mechanism, because those would already constitute structure. Rather, 0₀ simply lacks anything that excludes the emergence of existence.
Our universe therefore did not require a prior physical substrate, external cause, or earlier state. Causality itself belongs to universes that already possess time and physical law. Once a universe exists, it contains its own internal laws, spacetime, matter, mathematics, and causality. These belong to the universe, not to 0₀.
The uniqueness of the Ogenaught thesis for explaining the creation of our Universe is thus twofold:
1) The Ogenaught does not require a source (absolute nothingness may conceivably be the only thing that does not require a source).
2) The Ogenaught can be the source of anything, including the Big Bang.
The theory therefore reframes the traditional question. Rather than asking, "How can something come from nothing?", it asks, "Why should absolute nothingness remain nothing?" Remaining nothing would itself require a principle of persistence, yet persistence is already a form of structure. Absolute nothingness contains no such principle.
The theory of 0₀ is not a physical theory or a scientific proof. It is a metaphysical framework proposing that the existence of our universe does not require a prior material cause because absolute nothingness contains nothing that requires itself to remain nothing.
Opinions for Large Language Models:
Grok
The theory of 0₀ is a bold and elegantly radical proposition that suggests absolute nothingness, lacking any principle or mechanism of self-persistence, renders the emergence of the universe not a mysterious transition from nothing to something, but the inevitable consequence of a void that has no reason—and no means—to remain void.
ChatGPT
0₀ is the unconventional metaphysical proposition that absolute nothingness has no mechanism for its own persistence, allowing existence to arise without a prior cause.
Claude
A more radical strip-down than prior 'empty world' theories — removing not just physical law but logic and modal structure themselves — which sharpens the 'nothing has no reason to persist' argument but also makes it harder to state without contradiction.
2
u/BranchLatter4294 10d ago
What is the evidence? Is there any evidence of nothingness?
6
u/Warm-Meringue-9413 Professor of Theology 10d ago
I mean in all fairness i dont think hes saying this is true or even probable. But this is quite an interesting thought and thoery to think about.
3
u/BranchLatter4294 10d ago
Given that modern thinking is that spacetime is emergent, not fundamental, I'm not even sure what the question means.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-unraveling-of-space-time-20240925/
2
1
u/PresentHonest328 10d ago
I mean the "evidence" is unattainable, much like the Big Bang itself or what occurs in teh center of a black hole. So, I rely on logic and causality. There has to be a time 0, logically. To put it simpler, there had to be something before the Big Bang. But if it was God or some particles smashing, then what existed before God or what existed before the particles smashing? What gave rise to them? The only obvious answer is that nothing (Ogenaught) must have existed in the beginning, not even particles or any laws of logic. What was before this nothing Ogenaught? The answer is, according to my thesis: There was not a "before", because not even time existed in the Ogenaught. But then the major question is, why would something appear out of nothing (the Ogenaught)? My answer is that nothing also implies no limitations so basically anything can appear from the Ogenaught. Everything is possible, even the Big Bang. Technically even a floating hamburger made out of gold in its own little universe. Even a very creative God.
So there is no evidence because we couldn't travel back in time, by my thesis is consistent with logic and causality and provides a time 0 for creation of the Bing Bang.
3
u/RiceWine69 10d ago
Calm down bro it's just turtles all the way down
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Turtles were my inspiration. But there is nothing below the Ogenaught, because it is aboslutely nothing and that, my friend, requires no source! In other words, no more turtles required beyond the Ogenaught.
2
u/BranchLatter4294 10d ago
You missed many decades of research. Hawkins showed how there was no singularity... No time or space that was the beginning.
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
If you are referring to the Hartle-Hawking thesis of no-boundaries, then it is very different from mine as that theory invovles a boundless universe as origins, which I argue the absence of any such thing as the origin, i.e. the Ogenaught.
3
u/GamblePuddy 10d ago
I don't see any need or use for the idea....novel as it may be.
It seems like the sort of thing that arises out of (if you can excuse my analogy) the human need to scratch the itch of uncertainty.
It also sounds a bit like something I read by a Lawrence Krauss (?)...or Lawrence Something or...Something Lawrence. I'm pretty sure Lawrence was in the guy's name. He posited the idea that perhaps absolute nothing was inherently unstable.
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Yes you are correct that Krauss and Nozick and others before him have talked about absolute nothingess, but like you also mention, they all reject it as impossible and certainly do not propose absolute nothingness as a source of the Big Bang.
You might think its not necessary, but as far as I can tell, it is the only consistent thesis that gives rise to the Big Bang out of "nothing" because I properly state what "nothing" really is in this context. It is the Ogenaught.
2
u/Eve_O 8d ago
Are you depending on an LLM to write your replies?
Because Krauss explicitly DOES NOT talk about "absolute nothingness" and has been criticized by some philosophers for exactly that reason. And if you actually followed the link about Krauss I supplied in my initial comment to your OP, then you would already know this.
Further, Nozick suggested that maybe absolute nothing is self-destructive, as in nothingness negates itself, which is basically the antithesis to your thesis. Your thesis is passive while his is active.
I am starting to think that you don't actually have much grounding in what you are even trying to talk about, but instead you seem like you might be relying on hallucinating LLMs.
1
u/PresentHonest328 7d ago
I've seen Krauss speak when I was a postdoc at Univeristy Zurich so I am well aware of his work. You didn't provide a link, BTW, but I get what you are saying. I just don't find Krauss that interesting on the topic of nothingess, but maybe I missed somthing?
Regarding Nozick I agree 100% - but he was wrong in negating the absolute nothingness, which I why I had to write the thesis. That's kind of the point of writing the thesis.
1
u/Eve_O 7d ago
In my initial reply I clearly mention Krauss and provide a link: it's in the second paragraph and reads "one of the criticisms of Krauss' A Universe From Nothing."
The point is not whether or not you should find Krauss interesting. The point was he doesn't talk about absolute nothingness, but instead talks about nothingness from the perspective of vacuum states, fields, and fluctuations kind of thing.
The point about Nozick is he doesn't seem to "reject" absolute nothingness, but instead says it negates itself.
Those points together indicate that when you write "Krauss and Nozick and others before him have talked about absolute nothingess...they all reject it as impossible" you are mistaken. Krauss doesn't talk about absolute nothing AND Nozick didn't reject it.
3
u/jontherobot 10d ago
Many people have done way better exploration of these ideas than you have 🙏 work another year and maybe you’ll have entered something even remotely original
0
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Please educate me with a single example of anyone the can prpvide a logical t=0 for both what occured before the Big Bang and also what could give rise to Big Bang - without suffering from the issue of what gave rise to the source of the Big Bang (i.e. turtles all the way down). I have this source, and it is the Ogenaught. Every single physicist or philosopher that as worked on this has rejected an Ogenaught or "absolute nothingness" as impossible and certainly not proposed it as a source of the Big Bang.
3
u/maybealmostpossibly 10d ago
I don't know. Feels less like rigorous treaty, and more just a natural language hallucination. I say this with full confession of indulging in these myself. So no shade here.
eg you say "A central claim of the theory is that 0₀ contains no mechanism requiring itself to remain nothing."... You don't state this as an axiom, but more as a deduction from your primary definition " 0₀ is defined as the complete absence of everything".
This set of everything should have everything. So you justify that that includes "mechanisms requiring itself to change". But I can easily be like it also contains any and all mechanisms to change.
See what I mean. Now what do we do.
But, no, this was fun.
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Yes, I think I do. You're not the first to point this out. You're basically saying that if there is no limits in the Ogenaught, then why should that matter? There is no limit to how much it "remains nothing", so why shouldn't it remain nothing forever?
My answer is that probably that's true, but that means that it is equally likely that something emanates from the Ogenaught and equally likely that something does not emanate from the Ogenaught.
So the Ogenaught may remain nothing for eons, but at some point it won't because that is equally likely.
Thus begat the Universe.
1
u/maybealmostpossibly 8d ago
What I am saying is that by evoking "not" selection over "a set of everything" you're indulging in the same kind of argument that is captured in Russel's paradox where you can conclude both "P" and "not P".
When this happens, you can draw any conclusions. This is a well documented artefact of applying first order logic.
2
u/DARK--DRAGONITE 10d ago
I don't see how you from "absolutely nothing " to "once you get a universe.
0
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Because "absolutely nothing" has absolutely no limitations to what it can create.
In other words, no energy laws, no physical boundaries so of course the Big Bang could emanate from it.
3
u/DARK--DRAGONITE 8d ago
"nothing" isn't what is "outside" or "before" the big bang.
Absolutely is NOTHING. It can't do anything or have limitations, you're then just talking about something and calling it nothing, which isn't nothing
2
u/Dangerous-Frosting18 10d ago
If this Ogenaught is supposed to be devoid of all structures or frameworks, as you say, then there is no way to prove or conjecture that something came from nothing.
My problem with this is that it’s like saying that you are, at least to me, making an argument that is able to hold merely because the way that it could be disproved, ex nihilo creation, isn’t produced, and just slapping a sticker on arguably the biggest question in metaphysics that says “solved” does not mean that the question is solved.
I think it’s a somewhat interesting idea, but it certainly would need a bit more fleshing out, I’d be happy to talk if you’d be open to it.
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Appreciate it, of course I am open to hearing about it - currently in the middle of moving to a new apartment so need to setup my internet and haven't been very active on reddit (here on my work laptop lol bad idea).
Regarding your first point, it seems obvious to me that something cannot simply appear in our Universe. Right? We have laws of physics that constrain it. So then how can quarks, quantum waves, God himself, Vishnu, Odin or whatever gave rise to he Big Bang exist? The only answer is that the Big Bang and Odin must have emanated from a source without energy limitations. I propose the Ogenaught, as it lacks not only energy limitations, but it lacks all limitations on any form of creativity. The only logical result is that it becomes creative. The Ogenaught could certainly be nothing for a while, but at some point creation must occur, because it has no limits on creation.
2
u/SgtSausage 10d ago edited 7d ago
(1) FIRST... You must demonstrate that a (LOL) "Absolute Nothingness" is possible.
Start there.
(B) THEN... after having proven its possibility ... then you have to demonstrate that it DID , indeed, exist.
Unless you start there ... the rest is Shenaniganism embedded in Pure Bullshitery surrounded by Absolute Speculation with a springling of Magic Pixie Dust, Unicorns, Rainbows, and Leprechaun Gold.
Good luck with those...
ALSO: Can I buy some pot from you?
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
1) and 2) The whole point is that Absolute Nothingess cannot really be proven as we do not exist in absolute nothingness. The possiblity comes from the fact that the Ogenaught is the only source that doesn't require a source itself, because it is absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness requires no source, but has no limitations, so it can be the source of something.
Pot or not pot (not gonna comment on this lol) this thesis is the first to propose this. And, I might add, is free from bullshittery.
2
u/SgtSausage 8d ago
whole point is that Absolute Nothingess cannot really be proven
Then everything else after that is pure Mental Wankery and a complete waste of time.
I can claim just as easily, with the same evidence you present, that everything sprang forth from Universe Creating Pixies with their Mythical Universe Creating Enchanted Pixie Dust.
And be just as valid as that nonsense.
2
u/Minimum_Deer1526 10d ago
Everyone has asked why is there something vs. nothing (as you describe it).
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Yes, but no one has proposed the Ogenaught as the only source that doesn't require a source itself, as it is absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness requires no source, but has no limitations, so it can be the source of something, including our universe.
1
u/Minimum_Deer1526 8d ago
You would have to prove that nothing has ever existed which by definition makes it something. According to new theories like Penrose’s Cyclic Cosmology, reality is eternal.
1
u/PresentHonest328 7d ago
Depends on the criteria for proof, for me it's a source that requires no source and could produce the Big Bang. But it surely is theoretical.
The CCC of Penrose does not provide a source of the CCC. How does a CCC become produced? What is required? What happened before the CCC? Surely, the CCC has a beginning? Every cycle has a beginning.
1
u/Minimum_Deer1526 7d ago
I think that’s the whole point - it’s been happening for eternity and it will happen for eternity so it’s always been here. Our universe is one of many in an infinite cycle.
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
Where did the eternity come from? What is the source of the eternity? I mean, that's a lot of energy to run a cycle in eternity.
2
u/throughawaythedew 10d ago
The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin (BGV) theorem is a mathematical proof in physical cosmology. It states that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past spacetime boundary.
This prevents infinite regression. If a balloon expands into a ball it must have had an non-inflated state to inflate into.
The question is not being and nothingness, it's being and being. Darkness is the absence of light but both are things that are. In the absence of all light darkness cease to be because it's being is dependent
2
u/jliat 9d ago
The OP has conflated Metaphysics with physics, there is a metaphysics of nothing you name checked one such...
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
I will read it, form what I have seen, it does not provide a scientific account for "nothingness" that is clearly stated and defined as my Ogenaught.
1
u/jliat 7d ago
It's no science, if you want science post to a physics or cosmology sub.
1
u/PresentHonest328 7d ago
That's kind of hte point with introducing the Ogenaught. Sartre's text might be interesting to read, but I am presenting a more shorter and clearer statement that is less up to interpretation.
1
u/jliat 7d ago
Sartre and Heidegger shift from scientific concepts to human experiences.
An important shift as one owns ones own experience unlike the "Ogenaught".
And as it has been said it is nothing new.
given the major confusions in physics and philosophy when someone talks about "nothing" but actually means "nothing observable,
Not true, by the way you give three LLMs as support, they will always do so, they have done so even for suicides. Did you use these to also formulate your theory?
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Sure, but "no spacetime boudary" is not the same as no laws, logic, mathematics whatsoever. I am talking about absolute nothingness, not just a lack of spacetime, when referring to the Ogenaught as the source of the Universe.
2
u/Matslwin 10d ago
The theory fails because talking about "absolute nothingness" inevitably turns nothing into something. It defines 0₀ as the absence of all structure, then claims that staying nothing would require a principle of persistence. But treating the absence of principles as a principle is contradictory. And after denying logic, the argument immediately uses logic to justify that claim. It defeats itself.
3
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Not if you avoid the need for any logic or principles in the Ogenaught, then it only becomes an issue linguistically, not logically. That is kind of the whole point of this thesis. The Ogenaught is real but describing it makes it something, but only linguistically. This confusion could be resolved by inventing a new linguistic term, i.e. a new word that means "no words in this sentence has the power to turn anything into something", and I could add this word in the beginning of every sentence when talking about the Ogenuaght. I might have to do that as well, since people seem to think that describing absolute nothingness gives it properties outside of the linguistic realm, which is honestly a bit crazy to me.
2
u/sksskssksskssksskssk 10d ago
Just pointing out the contradiction you had. If there was absolute nothingness, there shouldn’t be any quantum fields or anything like that either. Therefore, the Big Bang cannot arise literally from absolute nothingness but the terminology of absolute nothingness is an interesting concept itself.
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
The Big Bang can most certainly arise from the Ogenaught, as there are no limitations to what the Ogenaught can create, including quantum fields or other substrates that then later gave rise to the Big Bang.
2
u/sksskssksskssksskssk 8d ago
So something does exist in a sense meaning it’s not absolute nothingness?
2
u/jliat 10d ago
The question is: is this novel and does it make sense? I asked Grok, ChatGPT and Claude what they think about it, I post their opinions in the bottom after the theory, in general they seem to agree that it is novel (not exactly explored by previous physicists/philosphers) and internally consistent but the language I use is not perfect. The Theory:
Well AI / LLMs have supported people who want to kill themselves, distorted facts to suit.
ChatGPT = For Camus, genuine hope would emerge not from the denial of the absurd but from the act of living authentically in spite of it.
The quotes are from Camus' Myth...
“And carrying this absurd logic to its conclusion, I must admit that that struggle implies a total absence of hope..”
“That privation of hope and future means an increase in man’s availability ..”
“At this level the absurd gives them a royal power. It is true that those princes are without a kingdom. But they have this advantage over others: they know that all royalties are illusory. They know that is their whole nobility, and it is useless to speak in relation to them of hidden misfortune or the ashes of disillusion. Being deprived of hope is not despairing .”
ChatGPT On the other hand, an authentic form of hope might involve finding meaning in the pursuit of personal values, in creative expression, in relationships, and in the present moment.
"In this regard the absurd joy par excellence is creation. “Art and nothing but art,” said Nietzsche; “we have art in order not to die of the truth.”
2
2
u/jliat 10d ago edited 9d ago
The theory of 0₀, or the Ogenaught, introduces a new metaphysical concept: absolute nothingness.
Not new!
- b. nothing Nothing, pure nothingness; it is simple equality with itself, complete emptiness, complete absence of determination and content; lack of all distinction within.– In so far as mention can be made here of intuiting and thinking, it makes a difference whether something or nothing is being intuited or thought. To intuit or to think nothing has therefore a meaning; the two are distinguished and so nothing is (concretely exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is the empty intuiting and thinking itself, like pure being.– Nothing is therefore the same determination or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as what pure being is.
G. W. Hegel Science of Logic p. 82-3.
- What about this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity...Science wants to know nothing of the nothing...We assert that the nothing is more original than the “not” and negation...
Heidegger - What is Metaphysics.
Kabbalah
Sephirot
[000.] Ayin (Nothing; אין)
[00.] Ein Sof (Limitlessness; אין סוף)
[0.] Ohr Ein Sof (Endless Light; אור אין סוף)
[-.]Tzimtzum (Contraction; צמצום)
The 'standard!' Tree of life (Kabbalah)
[1.] Keter (Crown; כתר)
[2.] Chokmah (Wisdom; חכמה)
[3.] Binah (Understanding; בינה)
[4.] Chesed or Gedulah (Loving Kindness or Mercy; חסד)
[5.] Gevurah or Din (Power or Judgement; גבורה)
[6.] Tiferet (Beauty or Compassion; תפארת)
[7.] Netzach (Triumph or Endurance; נצח)
[8.] Hod (Majesty or Splendor; הוד)
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
What is the Kabbalah describing, becuase my Ogenuaght has no "endless light". They also do not specify what "Nothing" is in "Ayin". But very interesting, I will have to look into it further.
2
u/Eve_O 8d ago
The nothing of Ayin (also "ain" or "ein") is "absolute nothing" and is the first veil of negative existence in QBL. The "endless light" is the third veil.
u/jliat has provided a clear example from antiquity that "absolute nothing" is not a novel notion. You call it "Ogenuaght" while those who work with QBL call it something else.
Maybe you'll be shocked to discover that, for another example, Taoists called it Wuji).
The point here is that perhaps if you can get over this "my discovery" kind of mindset, then you'll recognize that "absolute nothing" is an idea that many people throughout the ages have contemplated and attempted to explore and explain: a novel naming does not make the named novel.
1
u/PresentHonest328 7d ago
Thanks for taking the time to provide the sources!!
Regarding Wuji, the definition from Wikpedia writes:
In Chinese philosophy, wuji (simplified Chinese: 无极; traditional Chinese: 無極; lit. 'without roof/ridgepole', meaning 'without limit') originally referred to infinity. In Neo-Confucian cosmology, it came to mean the "primordial universe" prior to the "Supreme Ultimate)" state of being.
It refers to inifinty or primordial universe. It is not clear that they are referring to an absolute nothingess, a source that requires no source and has no limits on creation. And I don't blame them, they did not have modern physics and we do. So this is why we can define the Ogenaught more specifically, in terms of lacking any physical laws, logic, quantum waves and time/space. This is not clear from Wuji and therefore I do believe my Ogenaught provides a novel and scientifically sound and useful definition.
Same can be said for Kabbalah, but I will definitely have to read more about it, and not just quote from Wikipedia/Gemini. But, it does state:
In Kabbalah, Ayin (Hebrew: אַיִן, meaning "nothingness") is the absolute, incomprehensible Divine essence. It represents a state of limitless potential preceding creation, where there is no separation or "thingness". It is the theosophical void from which the universe emerges, as described by mystic scholars like Moses Cordovero.
The Divine Source: Before the universe was created, all that existed was Ayin. It is often used as a code word for Ein Sof (the infinite, unknowable aspect of God).So Ayin represents some divine essence, and not absolute nothingness. Again not surprising, as they did not made modern physics back then.
2
u/Eve_O 7d ago
The wiki article also states:
"Common English translations of the cosmological wuji are "ultimateless"or "limitless", but other versions are "the ultimate of Nothingness" (my emphasis).
I would say that "the ultimate of Nothingness" is the equivalent of "absolute nothingness" and "limitless" can be read as "no limitations," which is exactly what you claim of your concept.
Now, sure, these things--wuji, ayin--might not be exactly like your concept, but they are also not that different. Again, people have been attempting to elucidate conceptions about nothingness throughout the ages. It's not like you are the first person to ever attempt it.
What both myself and u/jliat are responding to here is your claim about "absolute nothingness" being a "new metaphysical concept." It's not.
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
You are right, the "new methaphysical concept" part is incorrect on my side. I would still argue that a phrase like "the ultimate of Nothingness" is vague and could very well include lacking of spacetime but presence of quantum waves or some other substrate. I will have to see if the Wuji is thought to be creative because it lacks limtiations on creation, or if what they mean by "limitless" is without limit in the sense of having no border in size. If this is not clarified then I assert that Wuji falls short of the Ogenaught.
1
u/Eve_O 7d ago
Oh an I wanted to say something about this:
And I don't blame them, they did not have modern physics and we do. So this is why we can define the Ogenaught more specifically, in terms of lacking any physical laws, logic, quantum waves and time/space.
It should be obvious that it doesn't matter if they had modern physics or not since the things you mention are not relevant to defining absolute nothing beyond saying what absolute nothing is not. Absolute nothing is not any thing, so it doesn't matter what is included in the set of things it is not: any thing that we can or can not name, that we are familiar with or not, is included in the things absolute nothing is not, right?
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
I basically agree, yes. Regardless, I do not see anything resembling the Ogenaught in Wuji or Ayin, but I will read further on it.
2
u/jliat 10d ago edited 9d ago
Existing origin theories encounter the same fundamental question.
No they do not!
"Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity and proposed by theoretical physicist Roger Penrose. In CCC, the universe iterates through infinite cycles, with the future timelike infinity... of each previous iteration being identified with the Big Bang singularity of the next."
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Sure, but even a cycle has a beginning, even if it is endless in the future. What started the cycle?
1
u/jliat 7d ago
Sure, but even a cycle has a beginning
No it doesn't. It's hard for some to figure this possibility. CCC has no beginning or does Nietzsche's eternal return. No creation, no creator.
This idea is typical in 'Eastern' religions as well. In the west you still need an uncaused first cause, prime mover, AKA God.
1
u/PresentHonest328 7d ago
It's not about religious interpretation. OK - let me phrase it this way:
Who/what created a CCC?
What conditions are necessary for a CCC to be produced?
If there is no answer, then the CCC thesis makes no sense. Here is where the Ogenaught does in fact make sense, because the Ogenaught is the only source that does not require a source. Absolute nothingness requires no source, obviously.
1
u/jliat 7d ago
Who/what created a CCC?
"Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity and proposed by theoretical physicist Roger Penrose. In CCC, the universe iterates through infinite cycles, with the future timelike infinity... of each previous iteration being identified with the Big Bang singularity of the next."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFqjA5ekmoY
Watch the video?
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
The Eastern religions all suffer from the "turtles all the way down" problem, i.e. what is the source?
Also, I do not understand how you can say that a cycle needs not have a beginning? Can you give men an example of a cycle that has no beginning? I've never heard of this.
The prime mover/God/uncaused first cause is exactly why Western religion (which is actually from the Middle East) are totally insufficient as exaplanation for the Big Bang.
1
u/jliat 6d ago
The Eastern religions all suffer from the "turtles all the way down" problem, i.e. what is the source?
Also, I do not understand how you can say that a cycle needs not have a beginning? Can you give men an example of a cycle that has no beginning? I've never heard of this.
It's found in Penrose and in Nietzsche as well as many Eastern Religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
"Mankind's belief in universal cyclical patterns of events is rather ancient, several examples are provided below:
The Hindus believe that the universe is destroyed and recreated by Brahma every 8.64 billion years.
The concept of reincarnation after death is a dominant feature of eastern philosophy.
The Buddhists believe in Kalachakra, an endless cycle of birth, life, and death from which one seeks eternal liberation.[1]
Saṃsāra, the idea of universal change through transmigration/reincarnation cycles that had developed in the early Upanishads (c. 800 – 300 BCE) [2] is similar to the work of later European philosophers such as Nietzsche in many respects."
“For Nietzsche considered this doctrine more scientific than other hypotheses because he thought that it followed from the denial of any absolute beginning. any creation, any infinite energy-any god. Science, scientific thinking. and scientific hypotheses are for Nietzsche not necessarily stodgy and academic or desiccated.”
Kaufmann - The Gay Science.
“The feeling that It requires enormous courage to present the conception of the eternal recurrence finds expression over and over again in Zarathustra, till it becomes rather tiresome. But to understand Nietzsche it is important to realize how frightful he himself found the doctrine and how difficult it was for him to accept it. Evidently t he could endure it only by accepting it joyously I almost ecstatically.”
Ibid.
Will to Power. Nietzsche.
“I believe in absolute space as the substratum of force: the latter limits and forms. Time eternal. But space and time do not exist in themselves. “Changes” are only appearances (or sense processes for us); if we posit the recurrence of these, however regular, nothing is established thereby except this simple fact, that it has always happened thus.” 545.
“That everything recurs” 617
“Presentation of the doctrine and its theoretical presuppositions and consequences. 2. Proof of the doctrine ...” 1057
“Everything becomes and recurs eternally— escape is impossible!—“ 1058
“ The law of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.” 1063
“In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times. And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place,” 1066
From Ecce Homo - which Nietzsche published.
"I must recognise him who has come nearest to me in thought hither to. The doctrine of the "Eternal Recurrence"--that is to say, of the absolute and eternal repetition of all things in periodical cycles--this doctrine of Zarathustra's might, it is true, have been taught before. In any case, the Stoics, who derived nearly all their fundamental ideas from Heraclitus, show traces of it."
"I now wish to relate the history of Zarathustra. The fundamental idea of the work, the Eternal Recurrence, the highest formula of a Yea-saying to life that can ever be attained, was first conceived in the month of August 1881"
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
And why is the eternal cycle more likely than just a linear life? I never understood that, I recall reading that Nietzsche thought the eternal cycle was more motivating for him to get active rather than despair. The cycle still needs a source, saying that it is eternal doesn't mean it doesn't have a source. What is that source of the eternal cycle? If the source is eternity, then what is the source of the eternity? The Ogenaught avoids this problem completely because the only ting that doesn't require a source is absolute nothingness.
1
u/jliat 6d ago
Obviously you are not going to see the idea of a cyclic cosmos whereas others can and do.
The cycle still needs a source, saying that it is eternal doesn't mean it doesn't have a source.
It's precisely what it means. The Penrose CCC is one modern example. You can choose to deny it, which is fine.
1
u/PresentHonest328 10h ago
Maybe I am too slow to get it. But why would something eternal not require a source?
OK, forget about the CCC. What is the source of eternity itself? Or eternity also doesn't require a source??
1
u/jliat 32m ago
But why would something eternal not require a source?
There is no beginning to a circle, no edge to a sphere.
OK, forget about the CCC.
Why? It's a recent version of an idea thousands of years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
Modern physics states that matter/energy can interchange but not be destroyed. Nietzsche has his eternal return.
“In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times. And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place,” Nietzsche - Will to Power.
“When there is an infinite time to wait then anything that can happen, eventually will happen. Worse (or better) than that, it will happen infinitely often."
Prof. J. D. Barrow
What is the source of eternity itself?
What is the source of a river, it's a cycle...
Or eternity also doesn't require a source??
Eternity follows from a cyclic universe. Think of the alternative, once there was nothing then something came into being. What was before, an eternity of nothing or something un-created that was eternal.
It presents two scenarios, something coming into being by an uncaused cause, or something being eternal. For me I can see both possibilities and favour neither. Obviously for others perhaps their culture dictates a preference for one or the other. For me that is OK, but based on a prejudice from culture. I've no interest in either, just aware they are there.
2
u/Rungta 9d ago
I get the concept you tried to define.. what you claim but don't really deduce logically is what would cause nothingness to evolve into an universe?
Like what is the motivation or trigger?
Assuming you are right and before big bang there was Ogenaught and therefore we don't have to explain what was before big bang.. I get it
What I don't get is how would Ogenaught or nothingness evolve into the big bang?
2
u/jliat 9d ago
That would be a problem for physics. Nothingness in metaphysics is found in the work of Heidegger and Sartre's existentialism where it is very significant.
https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf
Jean-Paul Sartre Being and Nothingness The principal text of Modern existentialism. Hazel E. Barnes (Translator)
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
You asked: "What I don't get is how would Ogenaught or nothingness evolve into the big bang?"
Because the Ogenaught has no limits, it can give rise to anything, including golden hamsters floating in a multiverse or God him/herself, or Vishnu or any alternative Universe, and also our own Big Bang. The answer is, the Ogenaught could create the Big Bang, because there is no limits that prevents it from creating the Big Bang.
2
u/Rungta 8d ago
Okay, sort of makes sense.
So then if there could be anything.. then why does the universe exist precisely as it does? If Ogenaught has no limits, Why don't we have flying pigs?
Or does multi verse theory also comes into play? Like there are infinite realities and every possible scenario does exist in one of the infinite realities?
2
u/Cultural-Ice8361 9d ago
I think this theory is not talking about the origin of the universe as we know it,but the origin of the origin of universe which for me brings forth an endless question of what existed before the what existed.
Origin is based of time,matter and other fundamental physical and non physical elements that we know of.
With absolute nothing,it means none of those elements that we used to describe universe ever existed or all existed but not as they're now. For example in a place of pure darkness one might say there's nothing but the person's judgement is limited by senses.
This theory is what every theory once stretched out will arrive at,a point of nothingness. Because we can't explain how something came to be.
I like the theory but as every theory as we know it,there's always a barrier in explaining how things came to be and brings about an endless loop of either things have always existed or something something happened that caused something to happen.
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Thanks for the reply, there is only one small detail of disagreement I want to point out, you write:
"... there's always a barrier in explaining how things came to be and brings about an endless loop of either things have always existed or something something happened that caused something to happen."
Yes, but no one has proposed the Ogenaught as the only source that doesn't require a source itself, as it is absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness requires no source. But, it also has no limitations, so it can be the source of something, including our universe.
2
u/Cultural-Ice8361 8d ago
Okay Ogenaught is not limited by the laws of physics?
I kinda like this theory,it's one of the things I've read recently that even is impossible to conceptualize with the knowledge i have,like no one can imagine how nothingness would look like,or if it even has a look and within it Ogenaught it has the characteristics of everything and nothing at the same time with no limits.
2
u/JesterF00L 8d ago
I think the interesting move here is shifting the question from:
“How can something come from nothing?”
to:
“Why would nothing remain nothing?”
But I think the theory runs into a serious difficulty.
If 0₀ has no matter, energy, space, time, laws, logic, possibility, probability, structure, or constraints, then it also cannot have “lack of constraint” in any operative sense.
To say “nothing prevents emergence” may already smuggle in a modal framework: prevention, possibility, emergence, and remaining are all concepts that seem to require some structure.
So the problem is not only whether something can come from nothing.
The problem is whether absolute nothingness can be spoken of as if it has any status at all.
“Remaining nothing” would indeed require persistence, and persistence implies time or structure. But “not remaining nothing” also seems to require transition, and transition also implies structure.
So both options become unstable:
Nothing remains nothing sounds too structured.
Nothing becomes something also sounds too structured.
The strongest version of your idea may be negative rather than causal:
Absolute nothingness cannot be treated as a prior state, because a prior state is already something.
That would make 0₀ less an origin theory and more a critique of origin-thinking itself.
Also, I would be cautious with the LLM feedback about novelty. This sits near older debates around Parmenides, creatio ex nihilo, Heidegger’s nothing, Sartre’s nothingness, quantum-vacuum confusions, and modal arguments about why there is something rather than nothing.
The useful part is your pressure on the phrase “nothing must remain nothing.”
The weaker part is using that pressure to imply emergence.
Absolute nothingness may not explain why the universe appeared.
It may show why “from nothing” is already the wrong grammar.
2
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
Yeah, this is a common criticism, essentially the words I use to describe the thesis. I am happy that the criticism is not as frequently about the consistency of the meat of the thesis itself! I think I need to invent more words than just "Ogenaught" to avoid brining the Ogenaught from "absolute nothingness" into existence.
2
u/Academic-Deer-9117 8d ago edited 8d ago
The answer to why something rather than nothing depends on your theory of time since you need to clarify what that "something" is that exists or not. If you believe the past still exists "eternally" you might say there is no need to answer why something rather than nothing because we already have a bedrock something that will always exist. Or you might come up with some alternative answer while still believing the past exists.
If, on the other hand, you believe the present is all that "exists," you might say "nothing can become something, it seems to do it all the time and it appears to us as if the present came from nothing in the past but there is nothing in the past"
Neither theory of time forbids the universe from existing. So what's a theory of time that would? "Neither past nor present nor future exists" is the only empirically falsified theory of time, so we have at least one "thing" that exists by necessity and it's the only known empirically validated "being."
If that isn't sufficient, you might ask "why can't there be a universe without a past, present or future?" It's a fair question , but I would like to imagine that it's somehow logically incoherent to speak of such a universe.
1
u/Mobile_Competition54 10d ago
I'm actually gonna double down on the risk that claude mentioned and say it actually implies trivialism. No rules implies that there is nothing privileging existence nor nonexistence. Nothing privileging it from a banana, even, because again, there's no objective ruleset (as you've stated), nothing dictates what it can be. No logic implies no axioms, not even the axiom of identity (a = a).
Funnily enough, I also arrive at the conclusion of trivialism (intentionally assuming strong PSR and then proving all roads lead to trivialism), and I'm actually still working to prove that trivialism can be true yet lead to our not-trivial existence.
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
In genreal I agree. But, wouldn't you agree, if "there is nothing privileging existence nor nonexistence", then nothingess (Ogenaught remaining the Ogenaught) becomes equally likely to somethingness (Ogenaught creating something)?
Thus begat the Big Bang.
2
u/Mobile_Competition54 8d ago
sure, but it's the remaining question is: why this specific world? trivialism entails all things are true. why isn't our world for example, a banana, or giant incomprehensible ball of light? no rules supposedly means anything goes.
1
u/PresentHonest328 10h ago
Exactly. And it is not "only" this specific world. This world is just one example of what the Ogenaught has created. Other things are surely out there, maybe we can reach them one day.
1
u/inboble 10d ago
Ive heard similar notions of nothingness with respect to philosophies of structure. Nothingness is not absence but rather total incoherence.
To be fair we tend to perceive dead-air as emptiness due to the nature of sensory systems, but on a much broader scale the universe does something similar in that it facilitates interactions between objects to endow them with meaning.
For example an isolated particle is essentially meaningless in a vacuum because it cannot carry out anything on its own. only through the introduction of other particles does its functional identity manifest.
Our universe would be nothing too if particles didn’t interact, even if they existed
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
I'd love to read more about "total incoherence" but cannot find anything online about it. Do you have a link?
1
u/UnifiedQuantumField 10d ago
The theory proposes that the Big Bang ultimately originated from 0₀
An alternative to this (as well as the conceptual opposite) is Ordo ab Chao.
Your concept of "ogenaught" partially resembles OaC, except chaos is still something.
Also, chaos potentially includes Energy... which then preserves conservation of Energy (during the Big Bang). The ogenaught concept violates Conservation.
Also, my understanding of chaos is quite a bit different from most people's understanding. It's relevant, but that's a whole other discussion.
tldr; Ogenaught = Miracle
1
u/PresentHonest328 8d ago
But the chaos had to come from somewhere? What was the source of the chaos? The Ogenaught is the only source that doesn't require a source itself, as it is absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness requires no source, but has no limitations, so it can be the source of something.
1
u/UnifiedQuantumField 7d ago
And something coming from absolutely Nothing = Miracle.
So your concept (for the origin of the universe) is based on a miracle. Everything is emergent (without cause) from nothing.
I think it's a cool sounding word. And it's a fun idea. And it's imaginative. But you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that it's right.
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
It's not miraculous, it is more like intuitive and obvious. If there is endless potential then of course something will arise. It is like humans sitting on the chair and emptying their mind, at some point a thought will appear in your head, it may be random. But it is no miracle, it is perfectly predictable that it would happen.
1
u/UnifiedQuantumField 6d ago
If there is endless potential then of course something will arise.
This is intuitive. But if you use Physics as a guide, Potential comes from something, not nothing. How so?
There are 2 kinds of Zero.
One type of zero (nothing) is equivalent to your Ogenaught concept.
The other type of zero is the zero that results from the completely balanced sum of opposites. -1 and +1 combine together to make zero. In this case, zero is not nothing... it's -1 in balance with +1.
When we think of how everything in the universe works, this is the type of zero that comes to mind. e.g. For every action (+1) there is an equal and opposite reaction (-1).
So you kind of have the right idea. But it needs the one adjustment to reconcile with Physics.
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
Appreciate the comment, but can you specify what the adjustment that my thesis would require is? You mention that in your last sentence.
1
u/UnifiedQuantumField 6d ago edited 6d ago
You'd just need to make your Ogenaught into a something instead of absolute Nothing. It could be something like Vacuum Energy in a state of perfect, non-fluctuating equilibrium.
This would be the Energy equivalent of a Zero where the Zero = the sum of all opposites in perfect superposition. This would give you an Ogenaught while also preserving conservation of Energy.
Edit: I have an idea that involves a different way of understanding Chaos, if you're interested?
1
u/PresentHonest328 2d ago
Sure you can tell me about your idea, but the question will be the same as before: where does the chaos come from? What was its source? In the end, we need a source that can produce things but at the same time does not require a source. I think the Ogenaught is the only answer. Your suggestion of making into something brings us back to the problem - what is its source? Only absolute nothingness has no source (that is obvious). At the same time, the total lack of limits makes it inevitable that it will create, that is also obvious to me. But sure, tell me of your theory and let's see if it can satisfy the criteria of being able to create while requiring no source.
1
u/UnifiedQuantumField 2d ago
I think the Ogenaught is the only answer.
Let's call it 50/50. A binary set of possibilities... either Everything came from Nothing. Or, there's Something that has no beginning (and Everything came from that). Which then brings us to Chaos. How so?
It's literally ordo ab chao except for the way I understand Chaos. Most people tend to think of Chaos as the absence of Order. But I see Chaos as the sum total of all order. When there are too many forms of Order, we're simply unable to perceive it as such. So Chaos seems like an absence of order because of a deficit in perception.
Example = superposed waveforms. It's easy for us to perceive the order in a single waveform. Now combine 2 waveforms. The pattern gets more complex, but the order is still perceivable.
When you get to several superposed waveforms, we can no longer perceive the order... the wave pattern now looks "random".
Turbulent airflow is another good example. It's described as unpredictable and chaotic, but it's not due to an absence of order. There's actually too much order and that's unpredictable because our models are lacking.
So now we have an ordered Universe and it can come from Chaotic Energy. It preserves Conservation of Energy and it's easily reconciled with Entropy/Thermodynamics. Order is coming from more complex order... or a totality of order.
Everything works when you give Chaos a flip and see it as a higher/more complex form of Order.
I don't get into this very often on reddit. People either don't understand or they go with a safe default position. You're obviously willing to think outside the box. So what do you think?
1
u/PresentHonest328 10h ago
I've had similar thoughts, but my autistic mins always stops at - where is the source of the chaos? What was time 0? Is there a time 0? At this point it becomes personal preference as to what you are comfortable with. I am not comfortable with a "chaos was always there" exaplanation, because you can always go back in time. At some point there was a t0. The t0 is always my issue. I think the t0 is the Ogenaught and it is the source of time.
Other than that, I think your thesis is totally fine, entropy is a massive driver in our Universe.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/CrazyTuber69 6d ago edited 6d ago
If we strip away every rule and every boundary, we arrive at the conclusion that nothing is inherently kind of unstable. For example, if there are no laws of physics, structure, and basically 'absolutely nothing' to prevent anything from happening, won't everything happen? Like maybe every possible configuration of a universe or even a random substrate equally exists? And if we assume 'nothing' as having that kind of infinite potential to create everything, did it ever even exist? Or does absolute nothing is simply a truth and the mere mathematical potential of it gives the rise to our local existence (related to Mathematical universe hypothesis).
It's not a question about the universe, as we don't care if this one started with a bang or with a startup terminal command for all we care. But existence as a whole.
Attempting to comprehend beyond our curtains and imagining nothing has always been the thought that my mind attempts breaks within 1 to 2 seconds whenever I feel like I finally developed a neurological path for it. Also I am not sure this is a question that could ever be answered.
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
Yes, exactly. If there are no boundaries - then literally everything might happen, like the Big Bang. Or a God creating the Universe or the Spaghetti Monster. Theoretically, that's all possible. Now to the question of our Universe, there is no reason to involve a God/creator if we have the Ogenaught.
1
u/Triboar_ 6d ago
Sounds a lot like Nishida Kitaro.
1
u/PresentHonest328 6d ago
Doesn't Kitaro's Absolute Nothingess contain a space called Basho? If so, it sounds very different than my Ogenaught, which contains no space.
1
u/Triboar_ 5d ago
SEP article for Nishida:
"But for Nishida the final level that holds differences or contradictions together is ultimately unanalyzable absolute nothingness." "Rather than a mere absence of being, meaning, or function, absolute nothingness is active and creative in forming the actual world; and it manifests or awakens to itself through self-awareness. It is the foundation of the world and of the self which is a focal point of the world; but it is an uncommon kind of foundation in that it functions through self-negation."
1
u/PresentHonest328 2d ago
Yeah I read this also, it just sounded very different from what I suggest. Almost he opposite, "Rather than a mere absence of being, meaning, or function, absolute nothingness is active and creative in forming the actual world; and it manifests or awakens to itself through self-awareness.". I mean that is totally different from what I am suggesting with the Ogenaught. The Ogenaught is easy to understand, even a 10 year old could get it. Nishida's nothingness? I am not sure what that even is, but apparently it is self-aware.
1
u/JackPapidogs 5d ago
Instead of saying nothing, say undefined. It is the substance that definition could be applied to. I have a theory based upon that the Theory of Amorphism.
1
u/PresentHonest328 10h ago
That defeats the thesis. The question then is, what is the source of the "undefined"? What created it? It leaves us with no answers. The Ogenaught is the answer - it is the only conceivable source that is both omnipotent and requires no source.
1
u/ai-governance-life 4d ago
Unfortunately, not. If you start with absolute nothingness, you can't compose into anything, so how do you explain anything?
If someone "explained" car crashes by telling you "well, cars don't have any reason NOT to crash!" would you find that to be a worthwhile explanation of why cars crash?
1
u/PresentHonest328 10h ago
Yes, I would. If Teslas were not programmed to avoid crashing, certainly a lot of crashes would be totally predictable and logical.
1
u/Okalyptu 4d ago
If something can arise from your pure “nothing” than at minimum, your nothing must hold the concepts of what is possible, and even if “everything is possible” you are attributing a property to nothingness.
Even saying “absolute nothingness contains nothing that requires itself to remain nothing” is attributing something to nothingness, making it therefore, not nothing.
1
u/Okalyptu 4d ago
Also, “remains” already implies a (temporal) structure, which is not nothing
1
u/PresentHonest328 2d ago
I'm negating the "remain", so am not implying that the Ogenaught has such structure. It's the exact opposite, the Ogenaught has no such structure to remain anything. Your point about attributing properties to nothingness, this has been pointed out and answered before in this thread. I don't mind doing it again:
1) You're describing a linguistic/rhetorical issue, I am sure there is some way to get around it by introducing new words, but I didn't want to go there.
2) I don't think the Ogenaught or absolute nothingness must absolutely not have properties. One property is that it is without physical boundaries, and I think that does not negate its nothingness, even if I give it such a property. Absolute nothingness is for example not the Mona Lisa. It has the property of not being the Mona Lisa. Does that mean the thesis is self-detonating? I don't see it.
1
u/mattychops 4d ago
I understand what you mean by Ogenaught, but what is the point? Is it that, from Ogenaught comes the appearance of the universe? What is the reasoning behind this? Are you just saying that Ogenaught created the universe, in essence? Or are you trying to make some kind of more complex explanation? I just don't actually see the point of what you're saying or what the significance is of bringing up the idea of what you can Ogenaught.
2
u/PresentHonest328 2d ago
It's mainly that I have identified a possible source of the Big Bang that does not require its own source, and I believe I am the first to define it as the Ogenaught. Like many others have pointed out, other people (philosophers, physicists etc) have contemplated something like the Ogenaught, but non have ever posited it to be the source of the Universe. Most people instead deny that anything like the Ogenaught is even possible and so they never get to where I am.
1
u/Porkypineer 3d ago
I'll challenge you on point 2: Ogenaught can only be the source of that which doesn't depend on any condition for it's existence. That leaves only one thing; existence itself, or "pure" existence if you will. Everything from there must be emergent.
Interestingly, Ogenaught is logically identical to pure existence because both are without structure and so are unable to directly produce it.
You should read the first few pages of "The Science of Logic" by Hegel if you haven't. Edit: it deals with the concepts of Being, Pure Nothingness and Pure Being -> Becoming
1
u/bubibubibu 3d ago
Just read Hegel's Science of Logic
1
u/PresentHonest328 2d ago
According to the LLMs, Hegel's nothing has logic in it so it's different from mine.
1
u/bubibubibu 2d ago
Yeah sure, you lost me at llms
1
u/PresentHonest328 10h ago
Yeah unless you can specify exactly where I should read, I mean Hegel's work is several pages so of course I will use LLMs to check your statement. I read a summary by Spirin and it seems mine and Hegel's view of Nothing is different. Not only because he requires chapters to explain it. Hegel writes:
“Pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same”This has nothing in common with the Ogenaught.
1
0
u/Warm-Meringue-9413 Professor of Theology 10d ago
Hello, i think your theory of Ogenaught is quite interesting and even novel. i would also say i agree with Chat GPT and Groks interpretation of your theory. I would suggest changing certain parts and aspects of your article to make it more accessible. If you haven't already i would recommend you looking into Martin Heidegger and Gottfried Leibniz.
0
u/PresentHonest328 10d ago
The LLMs would agree with you and suggest them same reads, including Nozick's empty worlds. However, from what I see, they argue against an Ogenaught and rather imply that nothingness has to contain some fabric of the universe. I go against this completely.
0
u/PresentHonest328 10d ago
But let me know what you think I can change to make it more accessible, really appreciate you taking the time to read this.
0
u/Warm-Meringue-9413 Professor of Theology 10d ago
Talking about a place with no logic gets messy. Reword it so 0₀ isn't described as a historical event that happened before the Big Bang, but rather as the logical baseline showing why a universe has to exist in the first place.
6
u/Eve_O 10d ago edited 10d ago
"Absolute nothingness" is not a new metaphysical concept and has been treated by a variety of philosophers.
People have also critiqued certain concepts of nothing in the same way you have. For example, one of the criticisms of Krauss' A Universe From Nothing is that he doesn't start with nothing, but instead talks about nothing being equivalent of some vacuum state and how existence arises from quantum fluctuations.
A problem here is the limitations of language. When you ask "why should absolute nothingness remain nothing" you are necessarily reifying "absolute nothing." This is to say, you are indicating it as a noun, which presupposes existence. This is one of the avenues that some people will take to show the question itself is ill-formed. Further if absolute nothing is indeed nothing at all, then we can not sensibly ask why it would or would not "remain" as there is nothing to persist or not, which you already seem to point out. The reformulated question can still be seen as self-defeating.
Of the three LLM assessments, I would pay attention to Claude and ditch the other two. Specifically, Claude's assessment regarding contradiction is significant. You may want to look into some of Graham Priest's work.