Nothing v. Something

Levels of Nothing by Robert Lawrence Kuhn

In this article I shall explore the essence of Nothing, or what I call“Levels of Nothing,” especially in light of recent debates and public interest. Why “Levels” of Nothing? That’s where the confusion lies.

As I have continued to think about Nothing, I have continued to think that Nothing “should,” in some sense, have obtained, and the only reason I accept the fact that Nothing does not obtain is not because of any of the arguments against Nothing, 4 but because of the raw existence of Something—because in my private consciousness I am forced to recognize that real existents compose Something. In other words, an a priori weighing of Nothing v. Something (from a timeless, explanatorily earlier perspective) would, for me, tip the balance heavily to Nothing, but for the fact of the matter.

Commentary by Feser:

Fifty Shades of Nothing

In any event, Kuhn does something Krauss tried but failed to do, which is to propose a philosophically interesting conception of a kind of “nothing” which is something less than what he calls “absolute” nothing or “Real Nothing.” The idea is this: As we go through the different possible “levels of nothing””and (contrary to the cute title I gave this article) Kuhn thinks there are nine of them”at each stage deleting more aspects of reality, we reach a point where there are no concrete objects in existence, but where there are still abstract objects.

Levels of Nothing by Robert Lawrence Kuhn




Commentary by Feser:

Fifty Shades of Nothing

Abstraction is an well understood process (at least superficially); of drawing out a contained part from a whole.
An abstract "object" has the linguistic basis of anything or any concept established from this process.  I humbly suggest that the ontological approach is that -- like mathematical objects -- abstract objects are rooted in the real-world probabilities that characterize informational objects. (see D. Gillies 2010)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...010-9096-6 

Informational objects having the ability to exist in states as possibly/potentially casual, yet not physically manifest.  (Kauffman, who you have already cited in a different post)  Hence, informational structures combined with real chances for manifestation (real-world meaning-related activity in the casual chain) could be the start of the physical universe.

Living things "see" affordances in the future and it drives them.  Seeing affordances in the next moment is not measurable physically, but is intuitive understood to be the driver for purposeful behavior.  Did interacting information objects create mind before the "big bang" or did mind sequence the evolving informational objects into a structure for the birth of manifest physical reality?   Maybe both at once, but an sound opinion is way above my pay-grade.