Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Is this a logically valid contradiction?


Question: Is this a logically valid contradiction!?
"Nothing can create itself!." One meaning of this is that none of the things which exist could have created themselves, and therefore the act of creation requires that existence be caused by a separate entity!. However, this statement also says that nothingness is a state of existence that can create itself, thereby excepting the first premise!. Does this debunk the first meaning, rendering it contradictory!? Would this mean that everything can create itself!?Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
I take it you are reading it in two ways:

1) "No thing can create itself" meaning that there is no such object X, such that X created X!.

2) "Nothingness can create nothingness" meaning that there is some reified thing that we call "nothingness", which can be its own creator!.

Firstly, I would point out that you can believe one without being obligated to endorse the other interpretation of the sentence!. Indeed, you're right in thinking that the statements are mutually exclusive!. You can't believe both simultaneously!.

Secondly, I find it weird to reify "nothingness" as a thing itself -- other than for purely linguistic convenience!. The truth of the first interpretation seems far more plausible to me!.

Put it this way, if I have two apples, then I have <some> apples!. If I have zero apples, then I have <no> apples!. Is "having <no> apples" a state of having apples!? I think the common-sensical and obvious answer is no!. If you have zero apples, then you don't have apples!.

Suppose I were to ask you, "Do you have any apples!?", and you were to say, "I have apples," and I ask you, "Oh good, how many apples do you have!?" and you say, "I have zero apples!"

I'd be inclined to say you didn't understand the question in the first place!. Having-zero means you don't-have!. This is analogous to the long-held fallacy that "existence" is a property -- fairly convincingly debunked by Kant in the 18th century (along with others)!.

So to answer your question: IF you accept the first interpretation, then the second interpretation is just nonsense!. IF you accept the second interpretation, then you're probably inclined to regard the first one as false!.

As to whether this is "a logically valid contradiction", a contradiction is never logically valid!. I guess you were wondering if it was a paradox -- that is, something like <X is true if and only if X is false>!.

So it's not a paradox!. What you really have is an ambiguous statement, where the two readings contradict each other!. So, an example of ambiguity would be "I'm going to the bank!."

I could mean A) I'm going to the (financial) bank!. Or it could mean B) I'm going to the (river) bank!. The interpretation of the sentence "I'm going to the bank" is ambiguous between (A) and (B)!.

Assuming that your financial bank is not on the river bank, and also assuming that you can't be in two places at once, you might regard that as a "logically valid contradiction", but of course it is not -- and in the simpler case (i!.e!. the bank case), it's pretty clear that what's going on is that the two readings are contradicting each other!. To be a genuine paradox, you would want the SAME reading of "I'm going to the bank" to contradict itself!. So, to be a paradox you want (A) to contradict (A), or else you want (B) to contradict (B)!.

An example of a genuine paradox is "The set of all sets that don't contain themselves"!. This is called Russell's Paradox (after Bertrand Russell)!. The set is {x|x?x}, and {x|x?x}∈{x|x?x} if and only if ?{x|x?x}∈{x|x?x}!. So that's a contradiction!.

That just shows, though, that you can't universally describe sets impredicatively!. We reject the claim that all sets can be described using logical formulae like this -- we never conclude that contradictions can be derived logically!. It is a premise of rational thought that logic contains no contradictions!. By definition, logic can't contain contradictions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

First nothing can create something---> you first have to define nothingness like 1 and-1 equals 0 and not 0 creats 1(Intelligent Design)
For ex an empty space in the universe is materia and anti-materia cancelling each other out
and in some cases can be divided and so create or generate itself!.
this is the closesed you can get to 'nothingness' in reality because TRUE nothingness has no volume(in definition) and therefor does not exist in this realityWww@QuestionHome@Com

"Nothing can create itself" is a coin with to sides
not even the universe was created by itself since we could not go deep into the science we call the god to be the creater of this wonderful universe
when you seek something and yearn for it ,one day you get it but then while yearning for it the nothingness that you spoke about comes to existence being a creater by itself
just like when you do nothing the nothingness comes to existence in the form of boredom
nature always keeps equilibrium like if there is a good person you will even find a bad person
GOOD LUCK!!




Www@QuestionHome@Com

I agree,nothing can create itself!. As for "nothingness is a state of existence that can create itself"!.!.!.come on,if it is nothingness,how can it create whatever it is!? Nothing means absence of!.!.!.and absence doesn't create because it's nothing!. That's my point of view!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

i don't know!. my question is where did the energy have it's origins to to become atoms!. proton, and neurons!? the basic things which make up our carbon based world!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

They are two different meanings!. It does not have to mean that "nothingness" is capable of creating itself, that's just semantics!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The nothingness referred to is the omnipresent God!. I think this answers everything!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

!.look up evolutioNWww@QuestionHome@Com

may be can be create but not being existWww@QuestionHome@Com