Helmut, List: HR: Nothing cannot exist, because something that exists is, well, something, and something is not nothing.
This led me to think of the following quote from Peirce. CSP: We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For *not *means *other than*, and *other *is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral *second*. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility--boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom. So of *potential *being there was in that initial state no lack. (CP 6.217; ) What he wrote next is consistent with a point that I have been trying to make recently. CSP: Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted. (CP 6.218) The key word here is *necessarily*, since obviously Peirce's cosmology requires that *something *resulted. He went on to contrast his approach with Hegel's, and then gave this conclusion. CSP: I say that nothing *necessarily *resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom. That is, nothing according to deductive logic. But such is not the logic of freedom or possibility. The logic of freedom, or potentiality, is that it shall annul itself. For if it does not annul itself, it remains a completely idle and do-nothing potentiality; and a completely idle potentiality is annulled by its complete idleness. I do not mean that potentiality immediately results in actuality. Mediately perhaps it does; but what immediately resulted was that unbounded potentiality became potentiality of this or that sort--that is, of some *quality*. Thus the zero of bare possibility, by evolutionary logic, leapt into the *unit *of some quality. This was hypothetic inference. (CP 6.219-220) Here he used the word "freedom," which is again something that we attribute to *persons*. He suggested that, "Mediately perhaps," bare possibility (Firstness) results in actuality (Secondness); i.e., something (or Someone) else must *mediate *(Thirdness) that transition. He then referred to the immediate process of "unbounded potentiality" becoming "the unit of some quality" as "hypothetic inference," which can only take place within a mind (or Mind). HR: So I want to remain an agnostic. I can understand the sentiment--I often say that the worst thing about any religious group is that it is made up of flawed people--but I hope that you will continue inquiring. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, Jon, Gary, list, > I think I am an agnostic. "Everything could come from nothing" (Edwina) > reminds me of having read (merely) the (very) beginning of Hegels, I think > it was "Science of logic". Hegel showed how dialectics leads to the > evolution from "nothing" to "something", and then on to all other things, > like life. I have understood it like: "Nothing" is a thesis, which cannot > exists of its own, because existence requires that it is something, i.e. > "The nothing", which means that "nothing" is "something", and there is a > something else, which is not nothing, as antithesis. Or something like > that. I found this argumentation quite catchy. Nothing cannot exist, > because something that exists is, well, something, and something is not > nothing. But now I am not still so sure of this logic. Because who said, > that a nothing has to exist to be nothing? Maybe it did not exist, but > merely was real? A real but nonexistent nothing might remain in its > sleeping mode forever, if no God shows up. I cannot pin it down, but have > the feeling, that the difference between real and existing requires theism, > and if you do not see the difference, one (eg.I) may be an agnostic. I am, > because I thought I had understood the terms "existing", "real", "being" > (this thing about the predicate), but somehow lost it again. Like faith: It > is an on-off-relationship somehow. I feel I cannot pin down God. But I like > this state better than to be somebody who claims to know God well. These > folks are dangerous, you just have to switch on the TV. So I want to remain > an agnostic. > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
