Why is there something rather than nothing? (Humans)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Friday, March 18, 2011, 02:30 (4796 days ago)
David has pointed to this old question of Leibniz on a couple of occasions. I would posit this simple solution:-Nothing cannot be understood without something. -Or in other words; you cannot know the difference between nothing and something. They both describe the same thing. One cannot conceive of nothing unless there is something...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
MATT suggests that an answer to Leibniz's question might be: "Nothing cannot be understood without something. Or in other words, you cannot know the difference between nothing and something. They both describe the same thing. One cannot conceive of nothing unless there IS something..."-Well, this makes a change from "time" ... or does it? I agree that nothing cannot be understood without something, and that one cannot conceive of nothing unless there is something. For one thing, understanding and conceiving are not possible without something (someone) to do the understanding and conceiving! For another, understanding always requires a context, and so nothing would require a something to make it understandable. However, I do not agree that there is no difference between something and nothing, (i.e. that they're the same). If we take as an image a sheet of paper, it's blank if there's nothing written on it, and it's not blank if there's something written on it. The paper itself is something, and it actually enables us to understand the difference between nothing and something. -Similarly, I'd say: "Good cannot be understood without bad, and one cannot conceive of good unless there is bad." On the other hand, I would not say: "You cannot know the difference between good and bad. They both describe the same thing." -But I don't think Leibniz's famous question concerns understanding or conceiving. His theme, I believe, was 'The Ultimate Origin of Things', and the whole argument seems to me to boil down to David's First Cause. From my seat on the fence I'd say the 'Ultimate Origin of Things' remains as unknowable as it ever was, and so Leibniz's question remains unanswerable.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, March 20, 2011, 22:31 (4793 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-I bring up this question because in Western Philosophy I have seen very often a deference to eastern philosophy for having contributed more about 'nothing' than anyone in the west has ever done. -This is a very tough nut to crack, and dhw's example begins to show how precisely difficult it is to comprehend nothing. -I am not an expert on this; so bear with me. - > MATT suggests that an answer to Leibniz's question might be: > > "Nothing cannot be understood without something. > Or in other words, you cannot know the difference between nothing and something. They both describe the same thing. One cannot conceive of nothing unless there IS something..." > > Well, this makes a change from "time" ... or does it? I agree that nothing cannot be understood without something, and that one cannot conceive of nothing unless there is something. For one thing, understanding and conceiving are not possible without something (someone) to do the understanding and conceiving! For another, understanding always requires a context, and so nothing would require a something to make it understandable. However, I do not agree that there is no difference between something and nothing, (i.e. that they're the same). If we take as an image a sheet of paper, it's blank if there's nothing written on it, and it's not blank if there's something written on it. The paper itself is something, and it actually enables us to understand the difference between nothing and something. > -This is 'nothing' in an extremely contextual circumstance. This is a traditional view in Western thought, that 'nothing' is an absence. You were very careful though to regard the paper as 'something,' but we are far too many levels up in abstraction, that we are missing the point; your nothing isn't really talking about 'nothing.' it's talking about a blank paper. Writing presupposes the existence of the paper. -Buddhist and Vedic thought approach things differently. Instead of starting from the bottom up as we have been trained to do from Plato on... they approach looking at the universe at first--starting with the whole as it were--and drills downward. (It is... completely backwards from what I learned in science classes!) -The true state of the universe is unity; we all understand one universe, and that we are a part of it. Everything else we derive from being born as grains of sands within this unity. -> Similarly, I'd say: "Good cannot be understood without bad, and one cannot conceive of good unless there is bad." On the other hand, I would not say: "You cannot know the difference between good and bad. They both describe the same thing." > -Again... it seems to me from your writing that you perfectly conceive of what I'm trying to say; good and bad are simply two views on one act. Eastern thought (concisely) says that 'something' and 'nothing' are exactly the same thing--only in regards to reality, or the universe at large. Nothing can only be understood as the absence of some object, and something with that object's presence. But it is a relational term. An adjective. "Nothing" can't exist without an object. The terms "nothing" and "something" therefore only exist in a pair; you cannot have only one. -> But I don't think Leibniz's famous question concerns understanding or conceiving. His theme, I believe, was 'The Ultimate Origin of Things', and the whole argument seems to me to boil down to David's First Cause. From my seat on the fence I'd say the 'Ultimate Origin of Things' remains as unknowable as it ever was, and so Leibniz's question remains unanswerable.-I agree, but David's had brought it up at least three times in the past couple of months. I think it is good to address some different approaches. Western thought already acknowledge 'nothing' as a very hard to grasp topic. (similarly with time)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
dhw: Understanding always requires a context, and so nothing would require a something to make it understandable. However, I do not agree that there is no difference between something and nothing, (i.e. that they're the same). If we take as an image a sheet of paper, it's blank if there's nothing written on it, and it's not blank if there's something written on it. The paper itself is something, and it actually enables us to understand the difference between nothing and something. MATT: This is 'nothing' in an extremely contextual circumstance. This is a traditional view in Western thought, that 'nothing' is an absence. You were very careful though to regard the paper as 'something,' but we are far too many levels up in abstraction, that we are missing the point; your nothing isn't really talking about 'nothing.' it's talking about a blank paper. Writing presupposes the existence of the paper.-You have repeated but also slightly distorted my argument, and I'm highlighting this because it seems to me that here, as in the original post, you're conflating understanding with what is. I'm not saying the blank page IS nothing, but that it enables us to understand something which in itself cannot be "grasped": nothing (blankness) cannot exist or be understood without something (paper and writing), but it's not the same as something (writing). You do the same in the following passage, but add further (important) factors which I will try to separate:-MATT: Eastern thought (concisely) says that 'something' and 'nothing' are exactly the same thing--only in regards to reality, or the universe at large. Nothing can only be understood as the absence of some object [= THE SAME AS THE "TRADITIONAL" WESTERN CONCEPT, THEN], and something with that object's presence. But it is a relational term. An adjective. "Nothing" can't exist without an object. The terms "nothing" and "something" therefore only exist in a pair; you cannot have only one.-(I HAVE TRIED AND FAILED THREE TIMES TO POST THE REST IN NORMAL TYPE, NOT ITALICS, AS I'M NO LONGER QUOTING. MY APOLOGIES FOR WHAT IS NOW A TYPOGRAPHICAL MESS, BUT I'LL FORGIVE YOU IF YOU SAY IT REFLECTS MY MESSY THINKING!)-I accept that all things are interlinked, nothing = an absence of something (a pronoun, though, not an adjective), cannot be understood without something, and cannot exist without something. What I do not understand is the claim that 'something' and 'nothing' are "exactly the same thing". I could accept the argument that nothing IS absence and non-existence, but would you then say that presence and absence, existence and non-existence, are the same thing? Going back to Leibniz's question, however, I must confess that I find "nothing" inconceivable as a starting point for the universe. If there was a bang, something must have gone bang. You say the predominant thought among eastern religions is that "the universe is ageless and infinite". That makes far more sense to me, especially as it includes the possibility of countless "big bangs", or contractions and expansions. Does that invalidate Leibniz's question? Not for me. I just think that if it's true, it invalidates his answer (which was that 'something' had to be created, and therefore there had to be a creator). Does it invalidate the question of a prime cause? I'd say it's an answer: that the prime cause IS the ageless and infinite universe. (Certain forms of theism could also live with that, by giving the universe a mind.)
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 00:28 (4792 days ago) @ dhw
Going back to Leibniz's question, however, I must confess that I find "nothing" inconceivable as a starting point for the universe. If there was a bang, something must have gone bang. You say the predominant thought among eastern religions is that "the universe is ageless and infinite". That makes far more sense to me, especially as it includes the possibility of countless "big bangs", or contractions and expansions. Does that invalidate Leibniz's question? Not for me. I just think that if it's true, it invalidates his answer (which was that 'something' had to be created, and therefore there had to be a creator). Does it invalidate the question of a prime cause? I'd say it's an answer: that the prime cause IS the ageless and infinite universe. (Certain forms of theism could also live with that, by giving the universe a mind.)-I agree with this statement fully!
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by BBella , Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 05:51 (4791 days ago) @ David Turell
Going back to Leibniz's question, however, I must confess that I find "nothing" inconceivable as a starting point for the universe. If there was a bang, something must have gone bang. You say the predominant thought among eastern religions is that "the universe is ageless and infinite". That makes far more sense to me, especially as it includes the possibility of countless "big bangs", or contractions and expansions. Does that invalidate Leibniz's question? Not for me. I just think that if it's true, it invalidates his answer (which was that 'something' had to be created, and therefore there had to be a creator). Does it invalidate the question of a prime cause? I'd say it's an answer: that the prime cause IS the ageless and infinite universe. (Certain forms of theism could also live with that, by giving the universe a mind.) > > I agree with this statement fully!-mE tOO! bB
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 12:52 (4783 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw, - > dhw: Understanding always requires a context, and so nothing would require a something to make it understandable. However, I do not agree that there is no difference between something and nothing, (i.e. that they're the same). If we take as an image a sheet of paper, it's blank if there's nothing written on it, and it's not blank if there's something written on it. The paper itself is something, and it actually enables us to understand the difference between nothing and something. > > MATT: This is 'nothing' in an extremely contextual circumstance. This is a traditional view in Western thought, that 'nothing' is an absence. You were very careful though to regard the paper as 'something,' but we are far too many levels up in abstraction, that we are missing the point; your nothing isn't really talking about 'nothing.' it's talking about a blank paper. Writing presupposes the existence of the paper. > > You have repeated but also slightly distorted my argument, and I'm highlighting this because it seems to me that here, as in the original post, you're conflating understanding with what is. I'm not saying the blank page IS nothing, but that it enables us to understand something which in itself cannot be "grasped": nothing (blankness) cannot exist or be understood without something (paper and writing), but it's not the same as something (writing). You do the same in the following passage, but add further (important) factors which I will try to separate: > > MATT: Eastern thought (concisely) says that 'something' and 'nothing' are exactly the same thing--only in regards to reality, or the universe at large. Nothing can only be understood as the absence of some object [= THE SAME AS THE "TRADITIONAL" WESTERN CONCEPT, THEN], and something with that object's presence. But it is a relational term. An adjective. "Nothing" can't exist without an object. The terms "nothing" and "something" therefore only exist in a pair; you cannot have only one. > > (I HAVE TRIED AND FAILED THREE TIMES TO POST THE REST IN NORMAL TYPE, NOT ITALICS, AS I'M NO LONGER QUOTING. MY APOLOGIES FOR WHAT IS NOW A TYPOGRAPHICAL MESS, BUT I'LL FORGIVE YOU IF YOU SAY IT REFLECTS MY MESSY THINKING!) > -No messier than my own... this site serves as a record of many of an aborted thought of mine...-> I accept that all things are interlinked, nothing = an absence of something (a pronoun, though, not an adjective), cannot be understood without something, and cannot exist without something. What I do not understand is the claim that 'something' and 'nothing' are "exactly the same thing". I could accept the argument that nothing IS absence and non-existence, but would you then say that presence and absence, existence and non-existence, are the same thing? > -I needed to step away and think about this, since your confusion here was compounded by my own ignorance... sorry for the delay...-You understand it; something and nothing only exist due to some object. The object is reality, something and nothing are only words; conventions usedto describe it. I never realized this, but I think that my thoughts 'on reality' is precisely that reality really is "beyond description." Language necessarily abstracts reality and makes it possible to reason... but the true nature of reality is utterly unthinkable. How many things have happened in the time taken to contemplate a single word? Our brains operate to filter AWAY most of the world from us. Think about that... reduction isn't just science, it is exactly the way weas humans solve problems[--how we experience the world.]-All words describe the one reality. Thus, something and nothing are the same thing. (I don't ask that you buy it, but I couldn't arrive at a better way to describe it.)-For all of my pretensions of science and materialism, I think my nature is really that of a conflicted mystic...-> Going back to Leibniz's question, however, I must confess that I find "nothing" inconceivable as a starting point for the universe. If there was a bang, something must have gone bang. You say the predominant thought among eastern religions is that "the universe is ageless and infinite". That makes far more sense to me, especially as it includes the possibility of countless "big bangs", or contractions and expansions. Does that invalidate Leibniz's question? Not for me. I just think that if it's true, it invalidates his answer (which was that 'something' had to be created, and therefore there had to be a creator). Does it invalidate the question of a prime cause? I'd say it's an answer: that the prime cause IS the ageless and infinite universe. (Certain forms of theism could also live with that, by giving the universe a mind.)-I think I said something similar earlier in the thread. David views that the Big Bang was 'it.' We only had one beginning, yet odd experiences such as deja vu point to many questions that a one-off universe can't fathom.-[EDITED]
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 18:50 (4783 days ago) @ xeno6696
> I think I said something similar earlier in the thread. David views that the Big Bang was 'it.' We only had one beginning, yet odd experiences such as deja vu point to many questions that a one-off universe can't fathom.- I don't think that deja vu means there are parallel universes. A brain can receive messages. I have and my wife does it regularly, all within the Milky Way
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 19:38 (4783 days ago) @ David Turell
> > I think I said something similar earlier in the thread. David views that the Big Bang was 'it.' We only had one beginning, yet odd experiences such as deja vu point to many questions that a one-off universe can't fathom. > > > I don't think that deja vu means there are parallel universes. A brain can receive messages. I have and my wife does it regularly, all within the Milky Way-Where do these "messages" come from? It makes more sense that the universe has permuted through the ages. The big bang certainly gives us a timeline, but is it The beginning? Physicits don't have a consensus here. Einstein wanted a static and unchanging universe, but we have a dynamic universe. Big crunch is long out of favor, there's other death and rebirth stories that are plausible. -Your belief in a single universe is a conviction based on common sense. But common sense in the world of physics has always proved wrong to date... hence my resistance.-Besides, a multiple dimension universe makes a deity much more plausible... -Have you read the latest sciam attacking inflation?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Thursday, March 31, 2011, 02:57 (4783 days ago) @ xeno6696
Besides, a multiple dimension universe makes a deity much more plausible... -How? > > Have you read the latest sciam attacking inflation? Yes. I still believe Guth.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, March 31, 2011, 03:06 (4783 days ago) @ David Turell
Besides, a multiple dimension universe makes a deity much more plausible... > > How?-It provides the only tenable explanation to how a deity can interface with the universe. Without it, we just have a big black wall. (Ideas I find silly like disembodied consciousness.)-> > > > Have you read the latest sciam attacking inflation? Yes. I still believe Guth.-Expected; I await the gravitational data eagerly. The differing views though also make very good cases. Yet, the most telling sentence is this: "The truth is that quantum physics rules inflation and anything that can happen will happen."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 02, 2011, 02:07 (4781 days ago) @ xeno6696
Besides, a multiple dimension universe makes a deity much more plausible... > > > > How? > > It provides the only tenable explanation to how a deity can interface with the universe. Without it, we just have a big black wall. (Ideas I find silly like disembodied consciousness.)- This is an interesting commentary that discusses the possibillity of God:-http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 21, 2011, 01:26 (4793 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,- I don't think I really made a full point. Let me add this addendum. -Once we've established that 'nothing' and 'something' exist as descriptions of some object--one could even say mathematically--we realize that the totality of existence includes both that something AND that nothing. If you approach the rest of creation under this guise, the question then of "Why is there something rather than nothing," ceases to be a valid question. As Nietzsche would say, "This isn't a binary question!"-This begins to also bleed over into the eastern notion of "cause and effect" although there is no consensus on this even in eastern thinking... clearly Brahman is a prime cause in Hinduism, Buddhism--specifically only the Vietnamese/Chinese/Japanese/Korean versions are the only ones that view the idea of a 'prime cause' in the way that I do here with the concept of 'something and nothing.' The question of a prime cause isn't a valid question. -This is why the one universal among eastern religions--the universe is ageless and infinite--tends to be the predominant thought.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Monday, March 21, 2011, 03:05 (4793 days ago) @ xeno6696
> This is why the one universal among eastern religions--the universe is ageless and infinite--tends to be the predominant thought.-As I noted before, aren't there infinite cycles of about 4 billion years?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 21, 2011, 12:41 (4792 days ago) @ David Turell
> > This is why the one universal among eastern religions--the universe is ageless and infinite--tends to be the predominant thought. > > As I noted before, aren't there infinite cycles of about 4 billion years?-This is true for Hinduism, but I don't think the Tao Te Ching (Chinese) agrees on that. I just picked up a couple of books on it. (Tao is pre-Buddhist chinese religion.)-I've been learning that Tibetan Buddhism is a syncretism with Buddhism and the native religion of Tibet (influenced of course by Tao, but with about as many deities as Hinduism.)-I'll let you know what they write about this. (It might not agree wit hinduism as it developed differently.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Monday, March 21, 2011, 18:43 (4792 days ago) @ xeno6696
This is why the one universal among eastern religions--the universe is ageless and infinite--tends to be the predominant thought.-Of course, if everything is eternal there is no first cause. Everything always is. The Western and Eastern thoughts must have been very similar, until Hubble showed the univese was expanding and then the Big Bang became the primary theory in the West. That certainly looks like a beginning and first cause becomes a strong consideration. Which raises an issue and I haven't studied for an answer. Aristotle must not have considered the universe eternal, or he felt there was a cause an eternity ago.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 21, 2011, 19:04 (4792 days ago) @ David Turell
This is why the one universal among eastern religions--the universe is ageless and infinite--tends to be the predominant thought. > > Of course, if everything is eternal there is no first cause. Everything always is. The Western and Eastern thoughts must have been very similar, until Hubble showed the univese was expanding and then the Big Bang became the primary theory in the West. That certainly looks like a beginning and first cause becomes a strong consideration. Which raises an issue and I haven't studied for an answer. Aristotle must not have considered the universe eternal, or he felt there was a cause an eternity ago.-The distinction for eastern thought isn't (simply) an assertion that the universe is eternal, but that "nothing" and "something" can only exist as descriptions of some thing.-So the rejection of the Leibniz question comes from this thrust--and indeed it is powerful.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 15:49 (4784 days ago) @ xeno6696
This question more than any other seems to be the prime motivator for Religions of any sort. I saw a video once of a physicist who tried to explain how the universe came literally from nothing. It was quite comical really..-The reason the concept of nothing is so hard to fathom is because it is an impossible state. 'Nothing', much like 'Time', 'Darkness', and the 'color black', is an intellectual construct that has no place in reality other than as an abstract to help us understand 'something'. Binary thinking is dangerous in that way. It allows us to create a concept that does not really exist and try to use it as if it does exist.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
TONY: The reason the concept of nothing is so hard to fathom is because it is an impossible state. 'Nothing', much like 'Time', 'Darkness', and the 'color black', is an intellectual construct that has no place in reality other than as an abstract to help us understand 'something'. Binary thinking is dangerous in that way. It allows us to create a concept that does not really exist and try to use it as if it does exist.-Please put me out of my philosophical misery and 1) define what you mean by "reality", and 2) give me three examples of things that are "real".
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Sunday, April 03, 2011, 12:55 (4779 days ago) @ dhw
Did anyone here se Jim Al-Khalilli's programmes on "Everything and Nothing" which summarised the modern physics understanding of these terms? There's only two days left to see "Nothing" though! He interprets it in terms of quantum theory as a void in which matter and antimatter particles keep appearing and disappearing as quantum fluctuations, in accordance with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Dirac's equation.-http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zw0n6-Does dhw really want some examples of things that really exist? His mind must be in a perpetual state of fog, with everything around him fluctuating in and out of existence. Is this a table I see before me?
--
GPJ
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 03, 2011, 18:15 (4779 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Not available to us here in the states... I even tried via proxy. -I'll have to wait until they release it over here...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 03, 2011, 18:30 (4779 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: The reason the concept of nothing is so hard to fathom is because it is an impossible state. 'Nothing', much like 'Time', 'Darkness', and the 'color black', is an intellectual construct that has no place in reality other than as an abstract to help us understand 'something'. Binary thinking is dangerous in that way. It allows us to create a concept that does not really exist and try to use it as if it does exist. > > Please put me out of my philosophical misery and 1) define what you mean by "reality", and 2) give me three examples of things that are "real".-There's plenty of things that we think are real, but I think Balance's greater point is simply that there is no objective reality. Even science to a great extent is ultimately a consensus on what we think is real. Yes, empiricism makes it strong, but not canonical. The difference is between deductive and inductive logic. Science works primarily through inductive logic. The problem for logicians in the late 1800's early 1900's was establishing a proof for inductive logic; to date, all attempts have failed. -If our most "objective" tool is based upon "making the strongest case," then it stands to reason science rests more on rhetoric than we would like to admit. -An experiment necessarily works only under certain circumstances... not always the same circumstances as what happens "in the wild." -To answer your question to Balance more fully: Everything is subjective. My "Precious few truths of science" incarnate.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 03, 2011, 22:42 (4779 days ago) @ xeno6696
> If our most "objective" tool is based upon "making the strongest case," then it stands to reason science rests more on rhetoric than we would like to admit. > > An experiment necessarily works only under certain circumstances... not always the same circumstances as what happens "in the wild." > > To answer your question to Balance more fully: Everything is subjective. My "Precious few truths of science" incarnate.-All of this is fine, but all progress depends upon what we accept as reality and truth in science, or we would still be riding on or behind horses. It is best to stay at a world view practical level. The rest is navel-gazing arguments about the angels and the pin head.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, April 04, 2011, 05:20 (4778 days ago) @ David Turell
> > If our most "objective" tool is based upon "making the strongest case," then it stands to reason science rests more on rhetoric than we would like to admit. > > > > An experiment necessarily works only under certain circumstances... not always the same circumstances as what happens "in the wild." > > > > To answer your question to Balance more fully: Everything is subjective. My "Precious few truths of science" incarnate. > > All of this is fine, but all progress depends upon what we accept as reality and truth in science, or we would still be riding on or behind horses. It is best to stay at a world view practical level. The rest is navel-gazing arguments about the angels and the pin head.-Bah.. the greatest inventions in history spawned from just such naval gazing. To move from the caloric to the ether to friction to particulate excitation as the source for heat involved people daring to question the 'reality' of their age. 60 years ago super computers would have been impractical, 50 years ago home computers were impractical, 40 years ago the internet was impractical, 30 years ago the world wide web was impractical, 20 years ago 32-bit processing was impractical, etc etc etc.. if you stay in the 'practical' you stagnate. History is made by those that dare to dream. (sorry for the little rant)
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Monday, April 04, 2011, 05:33 (4778 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > All of this is fine, but all progress depends upon what we accept as reality and truth in science, or we would still be riding on or behind horses. It is best to stay at a world view practical level. The rest is navel-gazing arguments about the angels and the pin head. > > Bah.. the greatest inventions in history spawned from just such naval gazing. To move from the caloric to the ether to friction to particulate excitation as the source for heat involved people daring to question the 'reality' of their age. 60 years ago super computers would have been impractical, 50 years ago home computers were impractical, 40 years ago the internet was impractical, 30 years ago the world wide web was impractical, 20 years ago 32-bit processing was impractical, etc etc etc.. if you stay in the 'practical' you stagnate. History is made by those that dare to dream. (sorry for the little rant)-You have misunderstood my answer. I was objecting to all the philosophizing that goes nowhere. The mental masturbation that causes arguments and confusion. Nothing practical is gained about arguing the number of angels fitted on a pin head. I agree exactly with your point. Navel-gazing to my mind is a perjorative term, meaning empty thinking. On the other hand progressive, inventive thought has the meanings you describe.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 04, 2011, 11:30 (4778 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > All of this is fine, but all progress depends upon what we accept as reality and truth in science, or we would still be riding on or behind horses. It is best to stay at a world view practical level. The rest is navel-gazing arguments about the angels and the pin head. > > > > Bah.. the greatest inventions in history spawned from just such naval gazing. To move from the caloric to the ether to friction to particulate excitation as the source for heat involved people daring to question the 'reality' of their age. 60 years ago super computers would have been impractical, 50 years ago home computers were impractical, 40 years ago the internet was impractical, 30 years ago the world wide web was impractical, 20 years ago 32-bit processing was impractical, etc etc etc.. if you stay in the 'practical' you stagnate. History is made by those that dare to dream. (sorry for the little rant) > > You have misunderstood my answer. I was objecting to all the philosophizing that goes nowhere. The mental masturbation that causes arguments and confusion. Nothing practical is gained about arguing the number of angels fitted on a pin head. I agree exactly with your point. Navel-gazing to my mind is a perjorative term, meaning empty thinking. On the other hand progressive, inventive thought has the meanings you describe.-Western thought would never have arrived at the perspective of eastern thought. They both tackle the same world, but the perspectives and resulting attitudes are universes apart. The pluralism we enjoy in the US existed in India far before Athenian democracy hit he world stage.-Everyone always wants you to "think outside the box" but in the end its those ppl who are the most conservative in regards to the fact that it requires radicalized and highly controversial means to get there. I'm sorry you've been getting little of interest from me lately, but I didn't come here for you. We've formed a pattern at this site over the past years, and I'm trying various means to break it. Or if you want, we can go back to the old Monty Python bit:-"An argument isn't just being contrary!" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!"
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, April 04, 2011, 18:13 (4778 days ago) @ xeno6696
We can always agree to disagree, and sometimes we will have to restate things until we are speaking the same language. No worries, and I do not get offended that easily(though I do admit to occasionally getting overly excited over one concept or another.)
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Monday, April 04, 2011, 22:07 (4778 days ago) @ xeno6696
Everyone always wants you to "think outside the box" but in the end its those ppl who are the most conservative in regards to the fact that it requires radicalized and highly controversial means to get there. I'm sorry you've been getting little of interest from me lately, but I didn't come here for you. We've formed a pattern at this site over the past years, and I'm trying various means to break it. Or if you want, we can go back to the old Monty Python bit: > > "An argument isn't just being contrary!" > "Yes it is!" > "No it isn't!"-In no way do I wish to offend you. I'm just not built in teh same intellectual way as you are. I guess I'm very Western in my thought patterns Please continue your approach, and I'll continue to watch, but generally on the sidelines.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 04, 2011, 23:58 (4778 days ago) @ David Turell
Everyone always wants you to "think outside the box" but in the end its those ppl who are the most conservative in regards to the fact that it requires radicalized and highly controversial means to get there. I'm sorry you've been getting little of interest from me lately, but I didn't come here for you. We've formed a pattern at this site over the past years, and I'm trying various means to break it. Or if you want, we can go back to the old Monty Python bit: > > > > "An argument isn't just being contrary!" > > "Yes it is!" > > "No it isn't!" > > In no way do I wish to offend you. I'm just not built in teh same intellectual way as you are. I guess I'm very Western in my thought patterns Please continue your approach, and I'll continue to watch, but generally on the sidelines.-Ach! I didn't mean to come off as offended, as I was hoping my pithy use of Monty Python would smooth over the stronger first portion... Sorry about that!-The main thing I'm trying to do is encourage a radical uprooting for both you and dhw... It is very difficult to completely flip thinking like this, but it IS possible. If you remember, I once stated "It's entirely possible that everything we've ever thought about God is wrong except that he exists..." this is the kind of tact I'm attempting to trod here. We will eventually return to the neglected "Epistemological Framework" thread, but at least for now, I need to ride this wave until it hits land...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 02:35 (4778 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Ach! I didn't mean to come off as offended, as I was hoping my pithy use of Monty Python would smooth over the stronger first portion... Sorry about that! > > The main thing I'm trying to do is encourage a radical uprooting for both you and dhw... It is very difficult to completely flip thinking like this, but it IS possible. If you remember, I once stated "It's entirely possible that everything we've ever thought about God is wrong except that he exists..." this is the kind of tact I'm attempting to trod here. We will eventually return to the neglected "Epistemological Framework" thread, but at least for now, I need to ride this wave until it hits land...-Just wanted to be sure we're ok. I'll read and follow and make a comment now and then. I've got too many years of medical detective work behind me. I like concreteness and answers.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 06, 2011, 23:24 (4776 days ago) @ David Turell
David > Just wanted to be sure we're ok. I'll read and follow and make a comment now and then. I've got too many years of medical detective work behind me. I like concreteness and answers.-I hope you can see why certain questions (such as the title of this thread) don't lend themselves to the kind of answer you seek. Chicken and egg problems...-Here's another tact: It's a good question, but if we're talking about origins, it's not really a valid one. Abstracting the language, it's asking "Why is there [noun] rather than [adjective]?" -This structure should clue you in as to why the question is invalid. It should read, "Why is there [noun] instead of [noun]?" Yes you might accuse me of semantics, but I will counter with the fact that in propositional logic, we throw away arguments all the time simply because of their predicate structure--this is exactly one of those instances. You can only compare two like things--nouns to nouns, adjectives to adjectives. -Nothing is not a 'thing,' which is exactly why East trumps West in its discussion. Nothing is less than a "placeholder," the mathematical "Empty Set." An adjective presupposes the existence of the thing to which it describes, therefore "Universe" and "Nothing" are not separate entities.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 07, 2011, 02:57 (4776 days ago) @ xeno6696
You can only compare two like things--nouns to nouns, adjectives to adjectives. > > Nothing is not a 'thing,' which is exactly why East trumps West in its discussion. Nothing is less than a "placeholder," the mathematical "Empty Set." An adjective presupposes the existence of the thing to which it describes, therefore "Universe" and "Nothing" are not separate entities.-My problem with your statement is that 'nothing' in the collegiate dictionary is a pronoun, not an adjective. Besides it is primarily Leibniz' question not mine. I simply repeated the statement to open a discussion.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Matt says the above question is not valid: "Abstracting the language, it's asking "Why is there [noun] rather than [adjective]?"-I've warned you before about your language! On 21 March at 20.14 I told you 'nothing' was a pronoun not an adjective, and now you've been rightly rapped over the knuckles by Dr David. Let me console you, though, It's possible to use 'nothing' as an adjective, in an expression like: "This is a nothing argument". I'd say that's a pretty appropriate example!
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 07, 2011, 14:27 (4775 days ago) @ dhw
Matt says the above question is not valid: "Abstracting the language, it's asking "Why is there [noun] rather than [adjective]?" > > I've warned you before about your language! On 21 March at 20.14 I told you 'nothing' was a pronoun not an adjective, and now you've been rightly rapped over the knuckles by Dr David. Let me console you, though, It's possible to use 'nothing' as an adjective, in an expression like: "This is a nothing argument". I'd say that's a pretty appropriate example!-Heh. In China, India and Japan, "Nothing" is an adjective.-Western philosophers cede to eastern in discussions about "nothing." So, I'll let you decide who is right... but I will be interested to see if you see a way through...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 07, 2011, 15:53 (4775 days ago) @ dhw
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing-Check the "Language and logic" portion.-For both you and david, a pronoun is not a noun, and therefore it is still just as fallacious to compare them.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
MATT: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing-Check the "Language and logic" portion. For both you and david, a pronoun is not a noun, and therefore it is still just as fallacious to compare them.-Time for you to take a grammatical sabbatical. 'Something' is also a pronoun.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Friday, April 08, 2011, 01:42 (4775 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing > > Check the "Language and logic" portion. For both you and david, a pronoun is not a noun, and therefore it is still just as fallacious to compare them. > > Time for you to take a grammatical sabbatical. 'Something' is also a pronoun.-Whoopee! Now things make real sense. Matt's statements did not.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 08, 2011, 03:47 (4775 days ago) @ David Turell
MATT: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing > > > > Check the "Language and logic" portion. For both you and david, a pronoun is not a noun, and therefore it is still just as fallacious to compare them. > > > > Time for you to take a grammatical sabbatical. 'Something' is also a pronoun. > > Whoopee! Now things make real sense. Matt's statements did not.-It's clear neither of you read the relevant article, fine, pronoun they both are, I don't care--at its core you're both wrong! Colors are my preference.-"Grammatically, the word "nothing" is an indefinite pronoun, which means that it refers to something. One might argue that "nothing" is a concept, and since concepts are things, the concept of "nothing" itself is a thing. This logical fallacy is neatly demonstrated by the joke syllogism that contains a fallacy of four terms:- 1. Nothing is beyond the Universe. 2. Average Joe is beyond nothing . 3. Therefore Average Joe is beyond the Universe.-The four terms in this example are- * Average Joe, * The Universe, * Nothing-as-a-thing, which a Average Joe is beyond than, and * Nothing-as-an-absence-of-a-thing: 'no-thing' or 'not-some-thing', i.e., no entity exists that is beyond The Universe.-The error in the conclusion stems from equating nothing-as-a-thing with nothing-as-absence-of-a-thing, which is invalid logic.-Clauses can often be restated to avoid the appearance that "nothing" possesses an attribute. For example, the sentence "There is nothing in the basement" can be restated as "There is not one thing in the basement". "Nothing is missing" can be restated as "everything is present". Conversely, many fallacious conclusions follow from treating "nothing" as a noun.-Modern logic made it possible to articulate these points coherently as intended, and many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a noun, as there is no object to which it refers. There remain various opposing views, however—for example, that our understanding of the world rests essentially on noticing absences and lacks as well as presences, and that "nothing" and related words serve to indicate these."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Friday, April 08, 2011, 05:26 (4774 days ago) @ xeno6696
> It's clear neither of you read the relevant article, fine, pronoun they both are, I don't care--at its core you're both wrong! Colors are my preference. > > 1. Nothing is beyond the Universe. > 2. Average Joe is beyond nothing . > 3. Therefore Average Joe is beyond the Universe.-You are wrong. I read the article. Average Joe is just word play in my mind. > > The error in the conclusion stems from equating nothing-as-a-thing with nothing-as-absence-of-a-thing, which is invalid logic. -The above is true of course. I still consider it playing with words. There are non sequitor syllogisms, but obvious to everyone. I still think this is word play. Of course Joe is illogical. > > Clauses can often be restated to avoid the appearance that "nothing" possesses an attribute. For example, the sentence "There is nothing in the basement" can be restated as "There is not one thing in the basement". "Nothing is missing" can be restated as "everything is present".-Agreed. -Conversely, many fallacious conclusions follow from treating "nothing" as a noun.-Really?- > > Modern logic made it possible to articulate these points coherently as intended, and many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a noun, as there is no object to which it refers. There remain various opposing views, however—for example, that our understanding of the world rests essentially on noticing absences and lacks as well as presences, and that "nothing" and related words serve to indicate these." -Again, agreed. First on one hand and then on the other hand.-Stimulate, stimulate litle philosopher How I wonder, from afar, What you hope to teach this crew, When it seems quite clear to me, Logically we all think things thru.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
MATT: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing Check the "Language and logic" portion. For both you and david, a pronoun is not a noun, and therefore it is still just as fallacious to compare them.-dhw: Time for you to take a grammatical sabbatical. 'Something' is also a pronoun.-DAVID: Whoopee! Now things make real sense. Matt's statements did not.-MATT: It's clear neither of you read the relevant article, fine, pronoun they both are, I don't care--at its core you're both wrong!-Ah Matt, your secret is out. You have confessed that you "live for conflict" (have you told your wife?), and this is a prime example. Not for the first time, you have put forward an argument, have had it demolished, and so you argue something different. Here is the argument to which David and I were responding: -MATT: Here's another tact: It's a good question [i.e. why is there something rather than nothing?], but if we're talking about origins, it's not really a valid one. Abstracting the language, it's asking "Why is there [noun] rather than [adjective]?" -This structure should clue you in as to why the question is invalid. It should read, "Why is there [noun] instead of [noun]?" Yes you might accuse me of semantics, but I will counter with the fact that in propositional logic, we throw away arguments all the time simply because of their predicate structure--this is exactly one of those instances. You can only compare two like things--nouns to nouns, adjectives to adjectives. -Leibniz was comparing two like things: pronoun to pronoun. End of discussion.-I did read the article (honest!), but didn't comment because of the above. I agree with all David's remarks as well as with his delightful conclusion, but would add that if you really want to discuss the reality of "nothing", perhaps you should highlight the second and not the first part of the following:-"Modern logic made it possible to articulate these points coherently as intended, and many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a noun, as there is no object to which it refers. There remain various opposing views, however—for example, that our understanding of the world rests essentially on noticing absences and lacks as well as presences, and that "nothing" and related words serve to indicate these."-By all means let us agree to disagree on which of these views makes more sense, but drop your grammatical objections to Leibniz's question. It's all very well living for conflict, but he who lives by the word shall die by the word.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 12:25 (4770 days ago) @ dhw
By all means let us agree to disagree on which of these views makes more sense, but drop your grammatical objections to Leibniz's question. It's all very well living for conflict, but he who lives by the word shall die by the word.-Have you ever studied the roots of the word "exist?"-Ex, meaning "outside of," and sistere meaning "to stand."-"To stand outside of." If I declare I exist, that I am not "nothing," what do I "stand outside of?" Do we have any accurate terms even or existence?-How different is this from cosmology?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 15:10 (4770 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Have you ever studied the roots of the word "exist?" > > Ex, meaning "outside of," and sistere meaning "to stand." > > "To stand outside of." If I declare I exist, that I am not "nothing," what do I "stand outside of?" Do we have any accurate terms even for existence?- My collegiate dictionary uses the latin meaning: 'to come into being' as its first explanation of the term. And that makes perfect sense. I stand within my reality as well as outside of it.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 15:51 (4770 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Have you ever studied the roots of the word "exist?" > > > > Ex, meaning "outside of," and sistere meaning "to stand." > > > > "To stand outside of." If I declare I exist, that I am not "nothing," what do I "stand outside of?" Do we have any accurate terms even for existence? > > > My collegiate dictionary uses the latin meaning: 'to come into being' as its first explanation of the term. And that makes perfect sense. I stand within my reality as well as outside of it.-We have far too much reliance on dictionaries here, lol. We can always shift definitions to avoid hard questions.-I think I'm going to start posting Koans for you and dhw... all my attempts at a frame shift have been futile...-I'm learning that eastern thought undestands reality in terms of what I would call "the superposition." -I'll think of something... hopefully you guys won't write it off as claptrap...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 16:33 (4770 days ago) @ xeno6696
all my attempts at a frame shift have been futile... > > I'm learning that eastern thought understands reality in terms of what I would call "the superposition." > > I'll think of something... hopefully you guys won't write it off as claptrap...-You do not spout claptrap. But! Eastern and Western thought patterns are a great distance apart. Try doing it in very small steps.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
MATT: The main thing I'm trying to do is encourage a radical uprooting for both you and dhw...It is very difficult to completely flip thinking like this, but it IS possible.-The discussions with you are never less than stimulating, and you continually push us along paths we would not otherwise explore. I'm therefore acutely conscious of how frustrating it must be if I keep refusing to go all the way with you, even though I do usually go SOME of the way. You acknowledged recently that your scientific materialism sits uneasily with your mysticism, and you've always been honest enough to admit it when there are contradictions in your arguments. The problem as I see it is that science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are only compatible to a certain degree, but there is a point beyond which they cannot converge. My state of indecision makes it impossible for me to ignore opposing arguments, and so when you state a positive case, I generally look for flaws, which makes me a horribly negative interlocutor, for which I apologize. But ultimately we tend to finish on the same side, because neither of us can embrace the extremes of theism/atheism. -I think science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are different approaches to an unknowable truth, and all of them can capture aspects of it in their different ways, but all of them have their limitations. Our discussions make us increasingly conscious of what can and can't be known, so even if we don't "completely flip" our thinking, that doesn't mean your efforts are wasted. Quite the reverse. I hope, though, that the very act of articulating and defending these ideas is of some use to you, because I would feel bad if I was the only one benefiting!
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 06, 2011, 23:38 (4776 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: The main thing I'm trying to do is encourage a radical uprooting for both you and dhw...It is very difficult to completely flip thinking like this, but it IS possible. > > The discussions with you are never less than stimulating, and you continually push us along paths we would not otherwise explore. I'm therefore acutely conscious of how frustrating it must be if I keep refusing to go all the way with you, even though I do usually go SOME of the way. You acknowledged recently that your scientific materialism sits uneasily with your mysticism, and you've always been honest enough to admit it when there are contradictions in your arguments. The problem as I see it is that science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are only compatible to a certain degree, but there is a point beyond which they cannot converge. My state of indecision makes it impossible for me to ignore opposing arguments, and so when you state a positive case, I generally look for flaws, which makes me a horribly negative interlocutor, for which I apologize. But ultimately we tend to finish on the same side, because neither of us can embrace the extremes of theism/atheism. > -Don't go Dawkins on me! That's dangerously close to "Can't live together..."-As I explore the depths of eastern thought, I see clearly what you discussed before, such as a rejection of subject/object. Nietzsche often talked about exploring the world both Eso- and exo-terically... -But a cutting Buddhist observation I recently read (and it is backed up by Freud/Jung) is that of what we see and witness in the world; we do not have an intrinsically objective view, and Nietzsche would go so far as to say that it is not possible to be objective at all. So much is done by our subconscious that we have every right to question how reliable our observations really are... which goes into the "radical skepticism" I espouse. It is definitely in the philosophical realm, but from my view, if we aren't yet to the point where we can fully trust our eyes, we should stay there until we "get it right..."-And then there's how much language itself influences observation...-> I think science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are different approaches to an unknowable truth, and all of them can capture aspects of it in their different ways, but all of them have their limitations. Our discussions make us increasingly conscious of what can and can't be known, so even if we don't "completely flip" our thinking, that doesn't mean your efforts are wasted. Quite the reverse. I hope, though, that the very act of articulating and defending these ideas is of some use to you, because I would feel bad if I was the only one benefiting!-No... I live for conflict, as "strong" as that may seem. Nothing's more exciting than throwing out a batch of ideas and seeing which ones survive...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 07, 2011, 03:01 (4776 days ago) @ xeno6696
> No... I live for conflict, as "strong" as that may seem. Nothing's more exciting than throwing out a batch of ideas and seeing which ones survive...-As I previously stated, it is fine to philosophize as to whether we 'know' our reality, but we have to accept some version of it in order to study and progress in science, culture and in society.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, April 04, 2011, 05:12 (4778 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: The reason the concept of nothing is so hard to fathom is because it is an impossible state. 'Nothing', much like 'Time', 'Darkness', and the 'color black', is an intellectual construct that has no place in reality other than as an abstract to help us understand 'something'. Binary thinking is dangerous in that way. It allows us to create a concept that does not really exist and try to use it as if it does exist. > > Please put me out of my philosophical misery and 1) define what you mean by "reality", and 2) give me three examples of things that are "real".-Sorry for the late reply. I am trying to work within the boundaries of our language DHW. We can measure photons, we can measure the spectrum of light and how they break down into colors. Black is not a color, it is an absence of color. Darkness is simply the absence of light. Time is human construct to help us deal with an extremely rapid sequence of static states. The sense of touch is illusory as you will never actually touch anything. All I was trying to point out is that 'Nothing' is only useful as defining the absence of something. Which is basically a state that can not exist. (Despite what quantum physicist flap their gums about, in order for there to be quantum fluctuations to create the universe from 'nothing', there has to be 'something' to fluctuate on the quantum level.)
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Monday, April 04, 2011, 05:40 (4778 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
All I was trying to point out is that 'Nothing' is only useful as defining the absence of something. Which is basically a state that can not exist. (Despite what quantum physicist flap their gums about, in order for there to be quantum fluctuations to create the universe from 'nothing', there has to be 'something' to fluctuate on the quantum level.)-Exactly the point I make. There can never be nothing within our universe. But to twist your point, our universe expands time and space into what? It is possible that our universe is expanding into a total void, a nothing, not in our universe or apparent to our senses. Nor can we ever test it, because space curves back on itself and we can never get to the edge of our universe. To allow the quantum fluctuation theory we must allow for an eternal space with quanta. Just as unprovable as my conjecture of a complete void.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, April 04, 2011, 06:54 (4778 days ago) @ David Turell
"Something" spread out across an infinite void is a logical fallacy. If 'something' exists, 'nothing' can not exist. They are antithetical. Therefore, any theory, or hypothesis(which is really what it is since it can not be tested), that is based on 'nothing' is a logical fallacy because 'something' exists. Otherwise, we would not be having this conversation.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 17:44 (4769 days ago) @ David Turell
The expansion of the universe might have a different cause than the proposed 'dark energy', antimatter gravity which should repel:- http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-antimatter-gravity-universe-expansion.html
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Thursday, May 19, 2011, 14:39 (4733 days ago) @ David Turell
The expansion of the universe might have a different cause than the proposed 'dark energy', antimatter gravity which should repel: > > > http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-antimatter-gravity-universe-expansion.html-A completed four-year study demonstrates that 'dark energy' is real and fits Einstein's predictions:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-wigglez-galaxy-einstein.html
Why is there something rather than nothing?
by David Turell , Thursday, May 26, 2011, 23:44 (4726 days ago) @ David Turell
Here is further, but not conclusive evidence for 'dark matter':-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46033-If both dark matter and dark energy are present, and the geometry of space in the universe is as 'flat' as thought, this universe is built to edxpand forever.