# Does the Fact that Something Exists mean that Nothing is Impossible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2009, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518 "2009-05-06T05:27:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/41 "2009-05-06T16:34:54Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > 3 is not possible in the second set, by definition. Yes they’re both infinite, but the definition of the second set precludes the inclusion of 3. You misunderstand – the first set is the set of things that are possible, the second is the set of things that actually happen; my aim was merely to show that given infinite opportunities for actualization (infinitely many choices), still not everything must necessarily happen, illustrated by not every number being chosen. That I set up an arbitrary rule to accomplish this is of no consequence, merely constituting an example; since ‘every even number’ is a valid set of choices, it might have been arrived at simply by chance just as well (alongside with infinitely many other progressions that do not choose every number in the naturals). ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/42 "2009-05-06T16:35:37Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I don’t think you meant to be abrupt in characterizing my talk about empty-set universes as “slinging around terms.” Nevertheless, permit me to observe that your second paragraph is meaningless horseshit. Noted. And, FWIW, I didn’t mean to appear abrupt or dismissive. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/43 "2009-05-06T16:44:43Z")
Also, Kimmy, to get to your point about reifying existence or nothingness, I believe that is horseshit as well. What could be more concrete than existence itself? When talking about the origins of the universe, some say the universe came out of non-existence. I’m arguing that it’s impossible. Something existed before that, and so on _ad infinitum._ ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/44 "2009-05-06T16:45:39Z")
If I’m understanding the OP correctly, the question being asked is that if nothing existed wouldn’t concepts like existence and impossibility themselves be non-existant? These concepts, like everything else, are part of the universe that exists and if the universe didn’t exist these concepts wouldn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/45 "2009-05-06T17:01:52Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Also, Kimmy, to get to your point about reifying existence or nothingness, I believe that is horseshit as well. > > What could be more concrete than existence itself? When talking about the origins of the universe, some say the universe came out of non-existence. I’m arguing that it’s impossible. Something existed before that, and so on _ad infinitum._ Look, I don’t want to come across as a big swinging dick, but: I have a degree in philosophy, you read _Gödel, Escher, Bach_. OK, I’ve read _Why Buildings Stand Up_, I don’t pretend I’m a civil engineer. I would start, at the very least!, with W.V.O. Quine’s essay [“On What There Is.”](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/46 "2009-05-06T17:03:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If I’m understanding the OP correctly, the question being asked is that if nothing existed wouldn’t concepts like existence and impossibility themselves be non-existant? These concepts, like everything else, are part of the universe that exists and if the universe didn’t exist these concepts wouldn’t exist. There you have it. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/47 "2009-05-06T17:11:36Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Look, I don’t want to come across as a big swinging dick, but: I have a degree in philosophy, you read _Gödel, Escher, Bach_. > > OK, I’ve read _Why Buildings Stand Up_, I don’t pretend I’m a civil engineer. > > I would start, at the very least!, with W.V.O. Quine’s essay [“On What There Is.”](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is) Well, hey, way to take that degree, and shove laypeople’s faces in it. You must feel pretty damn important. I don’t have a degree in philosophy, or anything at all, really. I’m just asking questions, and arguing my ideas, as naive and annoying as they may be. I never claimed to be anything that I’m not. And I take full advantage of the resources I have access to, this board being one of them. I’ll check out the essay (IMHO, that would have been a better tactic to begin with, if you thought I’m missing some vital understanding.) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/48 "2009-05-06T17:38:51Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > So I think you real question is, given infinity, is it possible for every point within infinity to contain nothing? I don’t know if it’s provable, but given the probabilistic nature of most things, when you give them an infinity to play out over, they’re all going to occur. Given infinity, if something is possible, it will occur. That’s what’s interesting about the parallel universes concepts. It hurts the head, but it’s interesting. > > Enjoy, > Steven To object to this another way, as the amount of opportunities approaches infinity, the chance of something happening (that has any chance at \*all \*of happening) indeed approaches 100%. But the thing to note is that it doesn’t actually _get_ to 100%. It remains theoretically possible to flip a fair coin an infinite number of times and still never see heads, because no matter how many flips have occured tails is always still an option. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/49 "2009-05-06T17:41:05Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > As I see it, the question is: > > [snip] > > “The universe exists, but might it just as well never have existed? Is the universe contingent?” Also, I think the above is is the way I was originally looking at the problem. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/50 "2009-05-06T17:46:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Does the fact that something in this universe exists mean that anything is possible. Well, in an infinite universe the answer would be ‘yes’…but with qualifiers dealing with probability. So, in an infinite universe it’s POSSIBLE that a million monkeys are currently typing away at the master works of Robert Jordan (and finishing his series!), but the probability is vanishingly small. > [@](#): > > Does that fact that the universe exists mean that it was impossible for it to not exist? On what time scale? The Universe isn’t eternal…so, there was a time when the Universe didn’t exist and there will be a time in the future when it will cease to exist (well, in theory)…but it exists right this second, thus at this time it precludes non-existence. Does that answer your question? Even with the clarification it’s a bit obscure what you are getting at to be honest. -XT ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/51 "2009-05-06T17:54:54Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, in an infinite universe the answer would be ‘yes’…but with qualifiers dealing with probability. So, in an infinite universe it’s POSSIBLE that a million monkeys are currently typing away at the master works of Robert Jordan (and finishing his series!), but the probability is vanishingly small. > > On what time scale? The Universe isn’t eternal…so, there was a time when the Universe didn’t exist and there will be a time in the future when it will cease to exist (well, in theory)…but it exists right this second, thus at this time it precludes non-existence. > > Does that answer your question? Even with the clarification it’s a bit obscure what you are getting at to be honest. > > -XT I know it’s really obscure, and I’m not trying to be obtuse or oblique. Let me ask you this, then. What’s the consensus on the idea that when/if the universe ceases to exist, what do we call that state? Is there anything science or philosophy can tell us about that, or is it just completely meaningless, hence me walking around in circles about it in this thread? Is there really nothing to talk about on that subject? Because we’re claiming our universe came out of that state, or might yet again… ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/52 "2009-05-06T18:02:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, in an infinite universe the answer would be ‘yes’…but with qualifiers dealing with probability. So, in an infinite universe it’s POSSIBLE that a million monkeys are currently typing away at the master works of Robert Jordan (and finishing his series!), but the probability is vanishingly small. > > On what time scale? The Universe isn’t eternal…so, there was a time when the Universe didn’t exist and there will be a time in the future when it will cease to exist (well, in theory)…but it exists right this second, thus at this time it precludes non-existence. > > Does that answer your question? Even with the clarification it’s a bit obscure what you are getting at to be honest. > > -XT Confidential to **cmyk** : If it’s any consolation for my earlier sniffing, this is horseshit too. Horseshit, by the way, has a technical meaning in philosophy. It means “quasi-mystical but with pretenses to mathematical or scientific rigor; of or like an astronomer stoned off his ass.” Critical indicators of the presence of horseshit are terms like “the Universe,” “eternal,” “infinity,” “nothingness,” “God is the fourth dimension!” [someone, not facially insane, once said this to me] and “Gödel, Escher, Bach.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/53 "2009-05-06T18:05:46Z")
[QUOTE=cmyk] What’s the consensus on the idea that when/if the universe ceases to exist, what do we call that state? [/QUOTE] There isn’t a consensus. The only certain thing is that ‘we’ won’t be calling it anything. Whether it’s the Big Rip, Big Crunch (unlikely) or just death from diffusion (or any of a number of other theories) there won’t be anything around when it happens…not even atoms. > [@](#): > > Is there anything science or philosophy can tell us about that, or is it just completely meaningless, hence me walking around in circles about it in this thread? There are competing theories about the death of the universe, sure. They are, of course, theories, so you can take your pick. I like the one’s that state that XT becomes God King of the Universe and is able to move through the membrane to a new universe when this one goes tits up…a universe full of large breasted love muffins eager to do XT’s bidding. Granted, this is not a widely accepted theory at this time, but there is a small but determined group (of one) who are fervent about it… > [@](#): > > Is there really nothing to talk about on that subject? Well, I’m still unclear about what you DO want to talk about. If you want to talk about the various theories regarding the end (or beginning) of the Universe then I’m sure you will get some responses. I can give you my History Channel level knowledge on the subject, but there are several people on this board who are physicists or at leave very familiar with the various theories. > [@](#): > > Because we’re claiming our universe came out of that state, or might yet again… Depends on the theory. There are some that claim the universe will eventually return to a singularity, but I think the current consensus, such as it is, postulate that the universe will become more and more diffuse until eventually even atoms break down. There are some interesting theories that I only vaguely understand concerning M Theory where our universe could sort of sprout a new entire but separate universe…as our universe might have been originally generated from some older universe. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/54 "2009-05-06T18:09:50Z")
[QUOTE=Kimmy\_Gibbler] Horseshit, by the way, has a technical meaning in philosophy. It means “quasi-mystical but with pretenses to mathematical or scientific rigor; of or like an astronomer stoned off his ass.” Critical indicators of the presence of horseshit are terms like “the Universe,” “eternal,” “infinity,” “nothingness,” “God is the fourth dimension!” [someone, not facially insane, once said this to me] and “Gödel, Escher, Bach.” [/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, which parts are horseshit and what do you base that on? Are you saying that the term ‘universe’ is horseshit? That it’s not infinite? (since I didn’t use eternal or nothingness or mention god or dimensions I’ll assume that was directed elsewhere). -XT ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/55 "2009-05-06T18:21:57Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > That’s all there really is to it. Why is there _something,_ rather than _nothing?_ My take on it is in order for something to exist there must be a God, if there is a God all things are possible, so then nothing is impossible. Which scriptures seem to agree with: [QUOTE=Luke 1:37] For nothing is impossible with God." [/QUOTE] Interesting enough man also had this ability on his own: [QUOTE=Genesis 11:6] The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. [/QUOTE] Which refers to the Tower of Babel. I would say it was a act of divine mercy for God to remove that ability of man. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/56 "2009-05-06T18:41:09Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > My take on it is in order for something to exist there must be a God, if there is a God all things are possible, so then nothing is impossible. Which scriptures seem to agree with: > > Interesting enough man also had this ability on his own: > Which refers to the Tower of Babel. I would say it was a act of divine mercy for God to remove that ability of man. Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/57 "2009-05-06T18:54:19Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > My take on it is in order for something to exist there must be a God, if there is a God all things are possible, so then nothing is impossible. My take on it is that you haven’t explained why there’s a God\* and not Nothing, and thus have merely changed a word in the question, and have not answered it or contributed to answering it. (Entertaining for the sake of argument the notion that there might possibly _be_ a God.) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/58 "2009-05-06T18:59:24Z")
Wow, **kanicbird,** always in top form, I see. Thanks **XT,** and others for your insights… even **Kimmy’s.** All I wanted was some food for thought. Obviously, I didn’t have a proper debate going in, and my thoughts were cloudy to begin with. I’ll close with saying my interests in starting this discussion was mainly to test the fences (in my own mind) of existential thinking. The non-fact that I’m _not_ here at all, rather than I _am_ here to type this words is the kicker for me. Kind of thinking of it backwards —rather than be awed at the profundity of the Anthropic Principle, I’m more awed that anything exists at all, when it didn’t have to. Did it? Horseshit or not, it’s pretty damn crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/59 "2009-05-06T20:39:22Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > So, the fact that the universe exists does _not_ mean that it is impossible for it to not exist? No, the fact that the universe exists (let’s call that U) implies that it is necessarily possible that the universe exists (let’s call that \<\>U). That’s Brouwer’s postulate: U -\> \<\>U, which he uses to formulate B modal logic by adding it to the M postulate — the basic modal axiom, which is (using U): U -\> U. And that means that if it is necessary for the universe to exist, then the universe actually exists. > [@](#): > > Sorry, I only restated the right side, omitting the ‘if A exists’, without pointing that out, so that in full, it was supposed to read ‘if A exists, it is necessary that it is not necessary that A doesn’t exist’, something different from ‘if A exists, it is necessary that it is not possible that A doesn’t exist’, which appeared to be what you were proposing in answering **cmyk** ’s question affirmatively. Or is not A -\> \<\>A \<-\> A -\> ~~A? Well, you’ve got your symbology right. \<\> \<-\> ~~, but A -\>~~ A should be read as “If A exists in actuality, then it is necessary that A does not necessarily not exist.” In other words ~~ should be read as “not necessarily not”. And you’re right that it is equivalent to “possibly”. > [@cmyk](#): > > Like **Der Trihs** stated, there’s the idea that _nothing_ is unstable. But even so, my thoughts are that it’s meaningless to even make such a claim. Nothing as a thing is, in fact, impossible. It cannot be that nothing preceded the universe because nothingness implies the lack of potential for anything to arise. > [@Mtgman](#): > > So I think you real question is, given infinity, is it possible for every point within infinity to contain nothing? That may be possible, Mtgman, for all we know. It is an epistemic (rather than an ontological) question. However, if there is an infinity — whatever it may contain, including nothing — then there is still something: infinity. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > It is tough to make out exactly what the OP is driving at, but it seems the biggest confusion is treating existence as either a predicate or otherwise reified (as in “nothingness”). > > “Nothing” is not a thing, it is a quantifier. To say “Something exists” just means that there is a thing which is a thing. This is not a tautology; if the universe of discourse is the null set (an empty universe), it is false. > > Maybe this is the source of the bewilderment: An empty universe is a thing, one reasons, and therefore, even in an empty universe, some thing (an empty universe) must exist. I think this is an instance of confusing metalanguage with the object under investigation. The empty universe exists in our _description_ of it, not in that universe itself. That sounds partly like Kant and partly like Wittgenstein. I think you make some good points. And you’ve reminded me of a quote by Arthur Eddington: “What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question.” Of course, my very favorite Eddington quote is, “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518/60 "2009-05-06T21:46:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Nothing as a thing is, in fact, impossible. It cannot be that nothing preceded the universe because nothingness implies the lack of potential for anything to arise. Why does it imply that? It implies that nothing caused by effects of existing objects will arise, but how would it exclude uncaused causes, such as (for example) the universe suddenly popping into existence ex nihilo for no reason? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-fact-that-something-exists-mean-that-nothing-is-impossible/495518.md?page=4)