Nothing Comes From Nothing

The observation that nothing comes from nothing (or "nothing comes from that which does not exist" as Epicurus states in the letter to Herodotus) is the starting point of Epicurean reasoning about the universe.

The conclusion that "nothing comes from nothing" is closely related to the second point - that nothing goes to nothing - and to the subsequent points that follow as well.

This question is tightly bound up with the question of whether the universe came from nothing, or was created by god. We won't focus on that aspect of the question until next week, and even then we won't represent that we know more than the latest physics researchers. Most of them admit that they really aren't sure of their positions either.

Here, therefore, we will focus our attention on the practical consequences of the Epicurean method of approaching the nature of the universe. In doing so we will focus primarily on the reasoning about the very first observation - nothing comes from nothing - so that we can learn from the Epicurean's pursuit of deductive reasoning. This aspect of the philosophy is important because Epicurus has a reputation for being what we call today an empiricist, admitting only what is accessible through the senses. The truth of the matter is that while the senses are of critical importance, Epicurean philosophy is established primarily through deductive reasoning.

This is a point stressed by Norman DeWitt as follows:

The adoption of the Euclidean textbook as a model involved, of course, the procedure by deductive reasoning. The Twelve Elementary Principles were first stated and then demonstrated like theorems. Each theorem. in turn, once demonstrated, became available as a major premise for the deduction of subsidiary theorems. The truth of this subsidiary theorem is then confirmed by the evidence of the Sensations, which operate as criteria. The mistake of believing Epicurus to be an empiricist must be avoided; it is not his teaching that knowledge has its origin in sensation. The status of the Sensations is that of witnesses in court and is limited to confirming or not confirming the truth of a given proposition.

• Norman DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, p. 25.

Lucretius makes the point that the data provided by the senses is not ultimately what we need, but rather what we need is knowledge that has been developed from and tested by the senses, in the following way:

[146] This terror then, this darkness of the mind, must needs be scattered not by the rays of the sun and the gleaming shafts of day, but by the outer view and the inner law of nature; whose first rule shall take its start for us from this, that nothing is ever begotten of nothing by divine will.

Further, as to the practical result of this observation on how the Epicurean thought process works:

The supreme requirement on the part of the student is "to be able to handle smartly the synoptic views" and the supreme objective is "the perfected precision" or perfection of detai1. The method of procedure - to adopt the phraseology of Plato and Aristotle - is not "from the particulars to first principles" but "from the first principles to particulars." The reasoning is deductive. For example, let it be assumed that the problem is to decide whether the number of worlds is finite or infinite. The student has learned among others the following principles: (1) "The multitude of atoms is infinite." (2) "The void is infinite in extent." From the first it follows that the supply of atoms of any given kind could not be exhausted by the creation of one world or of any number of worlds. From the second principle it follows that space would not be lacking for any number of worlds. Therefore the number of worlds is infinite, or, to express it differently, if the number of worlds were finite, the universe would not be infinite.

It is customary to classify Epicurus as an empiricist because of his alleged reliance upon the sensations. To do so is to misunderstand the function of the Canon and to ignore the manifest procedures of his reasoning. One of his epitomes was devoted to the Twelve Elementary Principles of Physics. Since the procedure was to begin with these and to commit them to memory, it follows that the method was deductive throughout. These principles became major premises. Ideas arrived at by deduction from these were called epinoai, which by etymology means "inferential" or "accessory" notions. For instance, the third principle declared: "The universe consists of solid bodies and void." From this was deduced, on the principle of the excluded middle, the inferential idea that the soul is corporeal. Again, the fifth and sixth principles declared the infinity of the universe. From this was deduced, on a principle called isonomy, the existence of gods. Unless perfect beings existed somewhere in addition to imperfect beings, the universe would not be infinite; infinity applies to values no less than to space and matter. The function of the Sensations as part of the Canon is to test the correctness of the inferences drawn from the Twelve Principles. These Principles themselves were not based upon the evidence of the Sensations; the truth of them was demonstrated by a deductive syllogism…..

• Norman DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, p.112.

Chatgpt:

Existence of Matter and Conservation: This principle suggests that all matter or substance must originate from pre-existing matter. It supports the view that the universe has always existed in some form and is not created from nothing. This aligns with the Epicurean idea of an eternal universe where atoms and void are the fundamental realities.

Rejection of Divine Creation: In philosophical and theological discussions, this view challenges the idea of divine creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). For materialists like Epicurus, the universe operates according to natural laws without the intervention of gods, reinforcing a self-sufficient and self-existing cosmos.

Causality and Natural Explanation: The principle underscores the need for natural causes to explain phenomena. If nothing comes from nothing, then every change or event must have a cause or an antecedent condition. This encourages a rational and empirical approach to understanding the world, rejecting supernatural explanations.

Continuity of Existence: It implies that the building blocks of reality (e.g., atoms in Epicurean philosophy) are indestructible and eternal. While forms and configurations of matter may change, the fundamental components persist, ensuring the continuity of existence.

Implications for Science: In modern science, this principle resonates with the law of conservation of energy and matter, which states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.

The first observation to make about the principle of nothing coming from nothing is that it is established by deductive reasoning, since our eyes are not acute enough to discern the existence of atoms directly.

Epicurus starts with what we can observe, that there are bodies around us, and that these bodies do not pop into existence (or out of existence) at random - if we observe them, we observe them come from something else:

The first two principles deal with the indestructibility and uncreatability of matter. If the question be raised how the truth of these propositions is established, the answer is by deduction. It must be observed that Epicurus makes no show of his logical procedures and, like the layman, employs the enthymeme or elliptical syllogism. Nevertheless, if his omissions be discerned and then supplied, the procedure is as follows. The purpose is to demonstrate the uncreatability of matter. Let it then be assumed for the purpose of the argument that the reverse is true: Matter is creatable. This assumption becomes the major premise and the method becomes deductive. The deductions would be that there would be no need of seeds of plants, no limits of size, no geographical distribution, no part for the seasons to play, and no necessity for fish to be born in the sea nor animals on the land. These inferences are all contrary to observed phenomena. Therefore, the assumption is false and the contrary must be true: Matter is uncreatable. … It is not to the poim to inquire here whether this logical method is sound in this panicular application. The point is that the method should be recognized as deductive, not inductive.

• Norman DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, p.157

Epicurus then takes that observation (that things do not pop into existence from nothing, and deduces that things must be formed from pre-existing particles:

The problem of what constitutes the universe is dispatched by Epicurus with extreme brevity. The universe consists of solid bodies and void. That the former exist the evidence of sensation alone is sufficient proof; in the case of bodies too small to be perceived by the senses recourse must be had to reasoning by analogy from the visible to the invisible. As for space or void, if it did not exist, then solid bodies would have no place in which to rest nor room in which to move, as they manifestly do move. Epicurus does not think it worth while that beginners should be told of the Eleatic philosophers, who held different views.

If at this point the student chose to consult the Big Epitome as represented by Lucretius, he would find a slight difference of order and more detail. Lucretius employs the method of reasoning from the visible to the invisible by such examples as the wind, odors, heat, cold, moisture, the invisible detrition of finger-rings and statues and the phenomena of growth. This reasoning is meant to prove the existence of atoms. As for void, he points to the porosity of rocks, which is proved by their absorption of water. Again, the difference of weight between equal volumes of wool and lead is to be explained by the presence and absence of void among the respective particles.

Only after presenting these reasons for believing that atoms and void exist does Lucretius turn to the general principle that the universe consists of solid bodies and void. If we assume, he reasons, the existence of a third something, then this will be either tangible or intangible. If it be tangible, however small, it will be an addition to the sum of matter; if, on the other hand, it be intangible and offer no resistance to a moving body, then it will belong to the category of void. The assumption is therefore false and the original statement holds true, that the universe consists of solid bodies and void. Precisely as before, the argument is deliberately thrown into the form of a deductive syllogism, in this instance of the disjunctive type, and the existcnce of anything other than atoms and void is excluded. These examples will suffice to show that the Twelve Principles are treated as theorems to be demonstrated and that the logical procedure is not inductive or empirical.

• Norman DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy, p.157

These points are made by Long and Sedley in this way:

Epicurus launches his physical theory from the three principles set out in A. Their object is to establish the existence of a permanent and unchanging pool of constituents for the world. The first two principles, that nothing comes into being out of nothing and that nothing perishes into nothing, had a long history in Greek thought, starting from their canonization by Parmenides in the early fifth century, and had been fundamental to Democritus' atomism …. The defence of the first … takes the form of modus tollens ('if p then q, but not-q; therefore not-p'), with the major premise.'If things came into being out of nothing, everything would come into being out of everything.' This may appear a non sequitur, until it is seen that 'out of' is being used in two different senses. The meaning must be 'If things came into being from a prior state of absolute non-existence, they might come into being under any conditions whatsoever.' These conditions are then listed by Lucretius (1.174-214) as place of generation …, time of generation, duration of generation, nutrition, limit of growth, and soil conditions for crops. The main thrust of the argument is that to assert generation ex nihilo is to abandon the principle of sufficient reason with respect to generation, with unacceptable consequences. (Cf. Parmenides, KRS 296,9-10, perhaps the only part of Parmenides' arguments against generation and destruction that Epicurus respects.)

• Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, p.26