Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that An absolutely nothing state — the complete absence of all reality — is not conceptually coherent.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's tractarian logical space and Heidegger's 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' both treat absolute nothingness as a coherent limiting concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The conceptual coherence of a limiting case does not require that the limit be achievable or instantiable, only that it be consistently defined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If absolute nothingness functions as a meaningful boundary concept in modal reasoning, denying its coherence arbitrarily forecloses legitimate metaphysical inquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.David Lewis's modal realism holds that conceivability without contradiction is a defeasible guide to possibility, and 'no concrete entities exist' appears contradiction-free.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Argument P4 smuggles in a substantive metaphysical commitment — that generic existence is necessary — as a premise rather than deriving it, making the argument question-begging.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference from 'empirical removals cannot be completed stepwise' to 'absolute nothingness is incoherent' commits a compositional fallacy about infinite procedures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.One can imagine the nonexistence of particular things or classes of things at the empirical level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ability to imagine successive removals of particular things does not entail that the process can be extended infinitely to reach a state of absolutely nothing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Not every verbally possible statement is conceptually coherent, even under a generous notion of 'conceptual'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.