Search Results

Nothing comes from nothing...this is surely getting deep now. I feel Parmenides bursting out saying “this is my thing folks!” “And it’s my thing because my “thing” is something, and that which is no “thing” cannot be since some “thing”already is. Nothing cannot be!” I believe Parmenides held that the universe must always be, because it exists. If nothing existed, there would be no universe. But since something “is” then nothing cannot be.

I guess it stands to “reason” that all things come from something. Even creation in the biblical sense and in many other myths is not truly ex nihilo. “In the beginning (pre-existing object) created the heaven and the earth.” All things must have previously existed from eternity. Based on Parmenidean principles...if the universe exists it exists from eternity (in whatever form). And since something DOES exist, since even one atom exists, the concept of nothing is upended. This is not to say that…

Should I move my something and nothing comments to a new thread? I could legitimately discuss this all day.

Awesome! Thanks!

“Nothing comes from Nothing and Parmenides” as the title?

I believe it had to do with a general ontological concept of the eternity of the universe. That if nothing truly existed, there would be no universe. But since something is… And we know that for a fact, nothing cannot be. Had nothing “existed”, nothing would ever be.

He may have gone on to try to disprove void, I actually don’t know if that’s true, I’d have to look it up. He may have. But for my purposes I see this as an important thought experiment for recognizing the eternity of the material universe.

I think Aristotle said that Parmenides ideas were “at the doorstep of madness.” But really discussing NO-thing and Something is important to Epicurean ideas.

I’ll go see if I can find some good information on Parmenides the post here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing The idea that "nothing comes from nothing", as articulated by Parmenides, first appears in Aristotle's Physics: τί δ᾽ ἄν μιν καὶ χρέος ὦρσεν ὕστερον ἢ πρόσθεν, τοῦ μηδενὸς ἀρξάμενον, φῦν; οὕτως ἢ πάμπαν πελέναι χρεών ἐστιν ἢ οὐχί. [1] The above, in a translation based on the John Burnet translation, appears as follows: “Yet why would it be created later rather than sooner, if it came from nothing; so, it must either be created altogether…

Karl Popper wrote: “So what was really new in Parmenides was his axiomatic-deductive method, which Leucippus and Democritus turned into a hypothetical-deductive method, and thus made part of scientific methodology.”

And yes he apparently did try to argue that void was nothing and nothing is not possible, but I would contend that purely from a conceptual standpoint on the existence of the universe, his position of something “being” as opposed to nothing ever being...is sound. In my mind at least. I don’t see conceptually how anything comes from nothing... If we are talking about physics like vacuum fluctuation states etc. you are still talking about a “concept” a thing born of something. It’s still not NO-th…

Parmenides clearly was basing his argument on logical, not observable grounds.

Yes word play based on definitions, but sufficiently strong enough of a wordplay coupled with our own observations to make a very strong argument for it being true. There would be no observable evidence of the opposite of his theory of “something” as opposed to “nothing” because we would not exist to theorize it or observe it.

Nothing would rule supreme!

Since even one “atom” exists, the idea of true nothing which would have no ability to create or manifest anything cannot be...it argues for the eternity of matter existing perpetually.

I would argue that the simple fact that we observe “anything” tells us that there is “something” as opposed to this ontological concept of nothing. Its not replacing the Epicurean or Lucretian formula but if anything bolstering it from a logical perspective in my opinion. The mere fact that Parmenides used the Epicurean Canon of his observation of things within his lifetime since he was a physical human being like us tells us he observed things like you and I do. He made his logical very abstrac…

I mean ultimately this is a very high level ontological concept explaining the very nature of why something is as opposed to not ever being. If the opposite were true nothing would exist and we wouldn’t be able to discuss it.

Don’t get me wrong this stuff absolutely makes my brain smoke and my head hurt with idealist abstraction. It is for sure conceptual word play at its heart... Whatever Parmenides posited beyond this ONE argument (I made a bad joke there)... the Parmenidean One..... I don’t particularly need to know what else he posited since his end goal was not pleasure. This one particular argument bolsters my subjective analysis of the universe based on the Epicurean Canon.

The Epicurean gods are something. If nothing was, they would not theoretically be if they do in fact exist. Because existence is...the Epicurean gods have an infinitely greater chance of existing rather than not....if nothing was. 🤯