Something rather than Nothing.

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 30th, 2018, 1:51 pm 

I would suggest that counterfactuals cannot apply to "Something rather than Nothing". Counterfactuals might be effectual when there is a multitude of possible outcomes and causes available. Within the context of "Something rather then Nothing", as now there is apparently something, the imagined other possibility would be pure nothing. There is no other reality to turn to since nothing means a non-reality, hence any counterfactual simply says nothing.

The question of (why) Something rather than Nothing, might also be seen itself as a counterfactual in which case another counterfactual approach would tend to extend the "why" ad infinitum, like trying to answer a question by stating the same question.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 30th, 2018, 1:57 pm 

Braininvat » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:00 am wrote:Never said I was against humorous banter, or other forms of humorous insult. (that stuff isn't true ad hominem, so most mods ignore it) Carry on, you mangy motherfuckers!


Well ok then, you lying hypocritical scumbag. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby davidm on August 30th, 2018, 2:05 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 30th, 2018, 11:44 am wrote:
If I am not mistaken Husserl goes in depth on this topic in “Logical Investigations,” but that is more of an assumption as I’ve not got round to reading it just yet - later in the year I hope.


Well it's right here. :-)
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 30th, 2018, 2:08 pm 

davidm » August 30th, 2018, 1:21 pm

But suppose we now remove all the objects. Now “nothing” is no longer paradoxically defined as “the separation between objects” because the objects do not exist. So we observe this state of affairs, and say, “this is nothing.”

But if we observe this state of affairs, and describe it, there is still something — the observer.


Funny how when you stop to think, consciousness makes an appearance. You are coming perilously close to my position. You might want to put your consciousness back into your body.

Or perhaps, you might consider existence cannot be separated from an observer, without which there is nothing.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Reg_Prescott on August 30th, 2018, 2:08 pm 

ronjanec » August 31st, 2018, 2:57 am wrote:
Braininvat » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:00 am wrote:Never said I was against humorous banter, or other forms of humorous insult. (that stuff isn't true ad hominem, so most mods ignore it) Carry on, you mangy motherfuckers!


Well ok then, you lying hypocritical scumbag. :)


Some say he shot Kennedy.
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 245
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby BadgerJelly on August 30th, 2018, 2:12 pm 

davidm » August 31st, 2018, 2:05 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » August 30th, 2018, 11:44 am wrote:
If I am not mistaken Husserl goes in depth on this topic in “Logical Investigations,” but that is more of an assumption as I’ve not got round to reading it just yet - later in the year I hope.


Well it's right here. :-)


That’s the exact edition I have on my bookshelf! Then there’s Volume II which I’ve not bought yet.

Note: I cannot read anything seriously unless it’s on paper. My eyes aren’t made for screens and the physical contact and interaction with a book means something to me.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 30th, 2018, 2:16 pm 

Reg_Prescott » Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:08 pm wrote:
ronjanec » August 31st, 2018, 2:57 am wrote:
Braininvat » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:00 am wrote:Never said I was against humorous banter, or other forms of humorous insult. (that stuff isn't true ad hominem, so most mods ignore it) Carry on, you mangy motherfuckers!


Well ok then, you lying hypocritical scumbag. :)


Some say he shot Kennedy.


I sure hope he realizes that I was joking about this if that’s the case. He might be on his way over here right now!
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 30th, 2018, 3:01 pm 

Brent696 » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:51 am wrote:I would suggest that counterfactuals cannot apply to "Something rather than Nothing". Counterfactuals might be effectual when there is a multitude of possible outcomes and causes available. Within the context of "Something rather then Nothing", as now there is apparently something, the imagined other possibility would be pure nothing. There is no other reality to turn to since nothing means a non-reality, hence any counterfactual simply says nothing.

The question of (why) Something rather than Nothing, might also be seen itself as a counterfactual in which case another counterfactual approach would tend to extend the "why" ad infinitum, like trying to answer a question by stating the same question.


“to extend the why ad infinitum”?

Brent, if existence had a beginning, there was almost certainly only one in particular finite reason or why that all existence began: I seriously doubt that there were multiple instantaneous different reasons at the exact same time to explain the reason or why(again, after the fact) existence began in the first place.
Last edited by ronjanec on August 30th, 2018, 3:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby davidm on August 30th, 2018, 3:02 pm 

Brent696 » August 30th, 2018, 12:08 pm wrote:Or perhaps, you might consider existence cannot be separated from an observer, without which there is nothing.


A rose is red. Its thorns prick. It smells sweet. It has a certain taste. It ordinarily doesn’t make a sound, but I suppose will make a faint rustling noise if stirred by a breeze.

Ontological idealism holds that reality consists entirely of mental constructs. Epistemological idealism holds that what we can know of the outside world are entirely mental constructs.

The rose is not really red, prickly, sweet-smelling, flavorful or rustling. Those are mental constructs. A different cognitive architecture might ascribe entirely different properties to a rose, or perhaps not notice the existence of a rose at all.

But — the rose absorbs most wavelengths of light except red, which it reflects; it gives off certain molecules that we interpret in a certain way as aroma and flavor; even though its thorns are not inherently prickly, our particular nervous system interprets them as such; the faint sound it might make in a breeze is interpreted by our particular ears and cognitive architecture as “faint rusting sound.”

Unless one wishes to maintain that all these other things — reflected wavelengths, molecules, sound waves, etc. — are also “in the mind” (ontological idealism), then one simply cannot maintain that in the absence of consciousness, nothing exists.

Of course, our ideas about wavelengths, molecules, etc., are mind-dependent, but I see no good reason to suppose that these things fail to exist at all in the absence of minds.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby DragonFly on August 30th, 2018, 3:43 pm 

It looks like existence has no alternative, which is no great shakes.

An infinite regress of causes/designs indicates that the effects would never surface, so that approach need not be considered.

Given, then, that neither a eternal existence nor a spontaneous existence (becoming so by itself) can have any input/design to it, it can be concluded that it has to be ‘random’ instead of anything specific.

I conclude that there is an eternal something because even the ‘spontaneous’ option needs some eternal ability in order to happen.

That existence has no opposite is thus rather trivial and unexciting in its simplicity for those expecting something more fancy or meaningful.

More scientifically, Anton Zeilinger has showed that randomness is the bedrock of reality, to a quality of three-sigma.

What might become of the random basis of not anything in particular? Well, anything, and perhaps even everything, maybe even time and time again.


Other notes on posts:

It isn't likely at all that our senses are a hoax and obtain nothing from what's 'out there'. 'Consciousness is all' thus takes a fall for the most obvious of reasoning.

Creationists have no footing to push forward with, sadly, so, seriously, how could the posited invisible supernatural realm ever go anywhere? Well, humans still tried, but it all came out to be the polar opposite of what was found.

Was glad to see certain posts erased as useless.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby dandelion on August 30th, 2018, 3:44 pm 

hyksos » August 28th, 2018, 3:39 am wrote:
But this ain't a fractal.


What do you think it might take to seem more fractal-like?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 30th, 2018, 3:58 pm 

DragonFly » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:43 pm wrote:It looks like existence has no alternative, which is no great shakes.

An infinite regress of causes/designs indicates that the effects would never surface, so that approach need not be considered.

Given, then, that neither a eternal existence nor a spontaneous existence (becoming so by itself) can have any input/design to it, it can be concluded that it has to be ‘random’ instead of anything specific.

I conclude that there is an eternal something because even the ‘spontaneous’ option needs some eternal ability in order to happen.

That existence has no opposite is thus rather trivial and unexciting in its simplicity for those expecting something more fancy or meaningful.

More scientifically, Anton Zeilinger has showed that randomness is the bedrock of reality, to a quality of three-sigma.

What might become of the random basis of not anything in particular? Well, anything, and perhaps even everything, maybe even time and time again.


Other notes on posts:

It isn't likely at all that our senses are a hoax and obtain nothing from what's 'out there'. 'Consciousness is all' thus takes a fall for the most obvious of reasoning.

Creationists have no footing to push forward with, sadly, so, seriously, how could the posited invisible supernatural realm ever go anywhere? Well, humans still tried, but it all came out to be the polar opposite of what was found.

Was glad to see certain posts erased as useless.


Nah. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Braininvat on August 30th, 2018, 4:10 pm 

I suspect the concept of “nothing” is a relative, non-absolute, contextual and linguistic device. If I want to find out what is in a jar, I open it, and if I discover no object in the jar, I say, “there is nothing in the jar.”

But this “nothing” is contextual, not absolute. It depends on the existence of the jar, and the observer, and language that includes the concept of “nothing,” and a descriptive word for that concept.

I begin to suspect that the question “why is there something rather than nothing” cannot be answered because the question is invalid. It would be the same category error as asking what caused the universe to exist...
- David M

I posted something along this line early in the thread, but you have fleshed out the semantic analysis much better. I suspect a fair number of weighty philosophic questions are similarly invalid, linguistic artifacts.

As for ontological idealism, I am always ready to take idealist volunteers to permit me to administer general anesthesia and then push them in front of a high speed train and see if they wake up later unscathed. Haven't gotten any volunteers, which has hurt my career as a mad scientist.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
davidmDragonFly liked this post


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Braininvat on August 30th, 2018, 4:16 pm 

Reg_Prescott » August 30th, 2018, 11:08 am wrote:
ronjanec » August 31st, 2018, 2:57 am wrote:
Braininvat » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:00 am wrote:Never said I was against humorous banter, or other forms of humorous insult. (that stuff isn't true ad hominem, so most mods ignore it) Carry on, you mangy motherfuckers!


Well ok then, you lying hypocritical scumbag. :)


Some say he shot Kennedy.


Mostly those who believe 7 year olds can be successful assassins. I was briefly on the grassy knoll, due to quantum fluctuation.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 30th, 2018, 4:56 pm 

ronjanec » August 30th, 2018, 3:01 pm

“to extend the why ad infinitum”?

Brent, if existence had a beginning, there was almost certainly only one in particular finite reason or why that all existence began: I seriously doubt that there were multiple instantaneous different reasons at the exact same time to explain the reason or why(again, after the fact) existence began in the first place.


I am not barring the fact there is but one cause for creation, it is a matter of context. Within the Creation there is a choice of "either/or" where both present a different reality.

In Something rather than Nothing, it is not a choice of do this or that,

IOWs, you cannot speculate what if all this did not exist, it is an impossible speculation in a sense. Although I will admit there are ways around this but that might get into a value judgment about what is truly real, basically is any of this truly real, and such a topic would confuse this issue.

As to WHY, that definitive reason for this Universe, I expressed that above, maybe the second page, but in short it was to expand the ever expanding consciousness of Infinite (Necessary) Being.

But as you can tell, if one views consciousness as a mere by product of neural-chemical activity, which I consider merely a gateway, then such an explanation of the universe would have to be rejected outright.

Just a while back I also argued over the universes ability to be conscious, based on superior Information and Function, but this is hard for many to imagine as our self awareness is so limited. I am as incapable of discerning your level of awareness as you are mine. I can see similarities in our actions perhaps and behaviors, and assume you have an awareness like mine, but as we expand out to dog, insects, Life, and the universe itself the commonalities grow exponentially as does my ability to recognize consciousness.

But I boiled this reasoning down to one simple question, do we learn from the universe or is the universe learning from us. We objectify people all the time, apparently I am the crazy religious guy who believes in magic and fairy tales, it certainly would not take much to objectify the universe as the whole of it is so vastly different from ourselves.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 30th, 2018, 5:30 pm 

davidm » August 30th, 2018, 3:02 pm wrote:
Brent696 » August 30th, 2018, 12:08 pm wrote:Or perhaps, you might consider existence cannot be separated from an observer, without which there is nothing.


A rose is red. Its thorns prick. It smells sweet. It has a certain taste. It ordinarily doesn’t make a sound, but I suppose will make a faint rustling noise if stirred by a breeze.

Ontological idealism holds that reality consists entirely of mental constructs. Epistemological idealism holds that what we can know of the outside world are entirely mental constructs.

The rose is not really red, prickly, sweet-smelling, flavorful or rustling. Those are mental constructs. A different cognitive architecture might ascribe entirely different properties to a rose, or perhaps not notice the existence of a rose at all.

But — the rose absorbs most wavelengths of light except red, which it reflects; it gives off certain molecules that we interpret in a certain way as aroma and flavor; even though its thorns are not inherently prickly, our particular nervous system interprets them as such; the faint sound it might make in a breeze is interpreted by our particular ears and cognitive architecture as “faint rusting sound.”

Unless one wishes to maintain that all these other things — reflected wavelengths, molecules, sound waves, etc. — are also “in the mind” (ontological idealism), then one simply cannot maintain that in the absence of consciousness, nothing exists.

Of course, our ideas about wavelengths, molecules, etc., are mind-dependent, but I see no good reason to suppose that these things fail to exist at all in the absence of minds.


Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved.


Spoken differently, when you die, so too will your universe cease to exist.

Often science moves on as if the laws of physics do not apply, for example,

(Wiki) Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.


But in Physics,

(Wiki)Einstein's theory was motivated by the assumption that every point in the universe can be treated as a 'center', and that correspondingly, physics must act the same in all reference frames. His simple and elegant theory shows that time is relative to an inertial frame. In an inertial frame, Newton's first law holds; it has its own local geometry, and therefore its own measurements of space and time; there is no 'universal clock'. An act of synchronization must be performed between two systems, at the least.


Science moves in the Newtonian world, but reality is better reflected, or more accurate portrayed in the quantum world, Newtonian fits with our intuitive senses, Einstein's does not, yet Einstein reflects the true nature of reality.

The rose does not flutter in the wind, it does not bloom, or absorb or produce anything, Time is not longer a object function of the universe, time is something we experience as we experience consciousness, its not out there but in here. This is why Physists and Philosophers are speaking of consciousness as a fundamental part of the universe itself.

If we are considering why is there something rather than nothing, the fundamental question of existence itself, then it should be done from the quantum viewpoint rather than from the Newtonian which is subject to the intuitive illusion of time. So it is not whether we perceive this way or that way, but rather how is it we can perceive anything at all.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby DragonFly on August 30th, 2018, 7:19 pm 

Well, Brent, let us go along with that the Creator’s Consciousness is all there is for us, as the Eternal Something, intact and ever fully formed, all of our consciousness type reality really just being ‘in here’ instead of ‘out there’, plus the need for the Creator to expand His ever expanding infinite consciousness.

First, let us simplify: there is no need for something actual like us with a TV-like receiver for the broadcasts ‘in here’ because we would already be represented in the Creator’s all pervading Consciousness. There’s also no need to “expand an ever expanding Infinite Consciousness”, obviously, being that it is already the Ultimate.

So, we are left in our ‘reality’ as only the Creator’s thoughts in his Consciousness—that let’s us think we are individuals operating exactly the same as if all were simply natural, with stuff ‘out there’.

Simply, we get fooled, and everything goes along per what goes on in God’s Consciousness. He thinks of all of the Universe’s happenings and perhaps especially those of our world, including the best to the worst.

So, then what, since we can’t really know if this is true, but it is evident that we aren’t allowed to know if this is true, plus what good would that do or not do since we are are only figments? God runs the show of His own Consciousness.

How does one further build on what’s not been established in the first place? It’s not like there’s a spiritual analog to the CMBR or any such to show that we’re in the interior of the Creator’s Consciousness.

Are all our posts really just those of God’s thoughts in His Consciousness? He sure debates with Himself a lot.

Again, then what?

P.S. Not that this is all that different from a block universe or a cause and effect presentism. Do we need the extra step for anything?
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 30th, 2018, 11:12 pm 

DragonFly » August 30th, 2018, 7:19 pm

Well, Brent, let us go along with that the Creator’s Consciousness is all there is for us, as the Eternal Something, intact and ever fully formed, all of our consciousness type reality really just being ‘in here’ instead of ‘out there’, plus the need for the Creator to expand His ever expanding infinite consciousness.


Kinda sounds like it is dripping with venom but ok, lets

DragonFly » August 30th, 2018, 7:19 pm

First, let us simplify: there is no need for something actual like us with a TV-like receiver for the broadcasts ‘in here’ because we would already be represented in the Creator’s all pervading Consciousness. There’s also no need to “expand an ever expanding Infinite Consciousness”, obviously, being that it is already the Ultimate.


I am not sure that 2 "no needs" qualifies as a simplification but nonetheless, our "receiver" like existence, gives us the ability to develop our individuality, our identity, apart from the oneness of infinite Being.

So when adding to the whole, it would not be a raw consciousness, but would also expand in multiplicity. Situations that are paradoxical for us in this universe do not apply in infinity, Infinite Being is both One and many.

As for why it expands in this way, such things are difficult for us to understand as we think of the concept of expanding in a spatial dimension, as if to so infinite being is growing, but it is also at rest. In a sense we can exist only because of the limitations, the paradoxical nature of this universe, therefore it is somewhat mind blowingly difficult to conceive of a nature beyond such paradoxes.

A mental exercise might include, we are first dreamed into existence, then later given infinite substance of Being. Consciousness expands as there are more identities to experience the Infinite's reality of Being. At least that's how the theory would go.....

DragonFly » August 30th, 2018, 7:19 pm

So, we are left in our ‘reality’ as only the Creator’s thoughts in his Consciousness—that let’s us think we are individuals operating exactly the same as if all were simply natural, with stuff ‘out there’.

Simply, we get fooled, and everything goes along per what goes on in God’s Consciousness. He thinks of all of the Universe’s happenings and perhaps especially those of our world, including the best to the worst.

So, then what, since we can’t really know if this is true, but it is evident that we aren’t allowed to know if this is true, plus what good would that do or not do since we are are only figments? God runs the show of His own Consciousness.


Even IF there is no infinite Being or ultimate purpose, none of these aspects of our reality change nor are they in our control. We had no say in our coming into being, we are born into ignorance to start off with and most people live their lives in a narrow band of understanding, most of what we think of as true is buffered with speculation, we cannot change the nature of our own existence and the universe is running the show. It is irrational to argue that we would have more control somehow over the universe if the cause of it was intentional or happenstance.

And ultimately we are all dancing to whatever music we hear,

DragonFly » August 30th, 2018, 7:19 pm

How does one further build on what’s not been established in the first place? It’s not like there’s a spiritual analog to the CMBR or any such to show that we’re in the interior of the Creator’s Consciousness.

Are all our posts really just those of God’s thoughts in His Consciousness? He sure debates with Himself a lot.

Again, then what?


Build??? I am not sure what you mean, human being discover connections and find ways to imitate them but we can conceive of nothing that does not already exist, creativity is a fluidity of relationships but we have never made something new. If you mean something like technology, this is all just fancy wheels and stone axes, knowledge comes and knowledge goes, we never really own it.

DragonFly » August 30th, 2018, 7:19 pm.

P.S. Not that this is all that different from a block universe or a cause and effect presentism. Do we need the extra step for anything?


Those who are given to exploration can choose such areas to explore, small particles, large galaxies, biology, or consciousness itself. I don't see a problem here, if someone finds themselves drawn to explore the possibility of Infinite and transcendent reality, then they have to follow the rules of such. If they are given to anatomy and physiology, then they follow the rules of that discipline. There are mathematicians who see into realities that are invisible to most common people, different disciplines require different languages, you might not ask the questions, but others do, and so they take the next step, they ask Why this or that. We can't force our limitations upon others. If you don't care why there is something rather than nothing, you're on the wrong thread.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby DragonFly on August 31st, 2018, 12:01 am 

Brent,

"Venom" would poison all the good information around it.

"Build" is about building upon a theory whose premises are invisible or can't be gotten at in the first place and means that additional posits upon it don't have any grounding either. Religion has built an ungrounded house of cards of umpteen levels on faith's soil, but at least it grants comfort to some, beyond the fear (which may help goodness).

Essentially, your Theory is about an alternate implementation (the messenger) that gives us the same message (of reality) as physical nature would, suggesting that an implementation difference that makes no difference to the message is no difference.

For example, music as a message is still essentially the same, whether its from an MP3 player or a live band.

Sure, it's a pleasant notion, your theory, and God, as we become special and perhaps obtain reward, but there's really nothing to show toward it, for it is that it can never reveal itself. We are faked out every step of the way, from the microscopic to the ginormous. If we don't put consciousness gas into our consciousness car, it doesn't run on the consciousness road that takes us to our consciousness workplace.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 31st, 2018, 12:37 am 

DragonFly » August 31st, 2018, 12:01 am

"Build" is about building upon a theory whose premises are invisible or can't be gotten at in the first place and means that additional posits upon it don't have any grounding either. Religion has built an ungrounded house of cards of umpteen levels on faith's soil, but at least it grants comfort to some, beyond the fear (which may help goodness).

Essentially, your Theory is about an alternate implementation (the messenger) that gives us the same message (of reality) as physical nature would, suggesting that an implementation difference that makes no difference to the message is no difference.

For example, music as a message is still essentially the same, whether its from an MP3 player or a live band.


I hope you are not veering from philosophy to religion and expressions of faith based beliefs, it seems you might be responding to me as if I have expressed some particular theologies, attributing beliefs to me I have not promoted. I have made no threats nor promises, inferred or otherwise.

When philosophically discussing the nature of existence, there is a flexibility about what causes and purposes might exist beyond our present ability to quantify, if I have said anything that would defy something of the universe that has been proven, then I would agree that is debatable.

In philosophic. logic is our only tool, this universe I see as purposeful, ordered, organized, and consisting not only of matter and energy but consciousness also as a viable factor.

I have seen a lot of talk about randomness, possibilities, and other qualities associated with chaos, yet in nature I see order brought forth from information, from intelligence, life from life, structure from design. The idea, the theory, that an infinite Intelligence could be responsible for this universe IS NOT an irrational postulation, it is not magical, nor fanciful, it simply is inherently rational.

As such it is viable, and probably much more so that randomness or blunt fact, or whatever as I am not sure any other alternative has actually been offered, other than maybe "who cares" or "Nothing don't exist". But you and others are free to believe whatever they like, I'm just sharing another possibility.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby davidm on August 31st, 2018, 9:19 am 

Brent696 » August 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm wrote:
Science moves in the Newtonian world, but reality is better reflected, or more accurate portrayed in the quantum world, Newtonian fits with our intuitive senses, Einstein's does not, yet Einstein reflects the true nature of reality.


Science, and scientists, most assuredly do not “move in a Newtonian world.” I challenge you to either support or retract this statement (I predict you will do neither, but merely go on blithely espousing it). After all, Brent, who introduced to world to relativity and quantum theory? Priests? Sorcerers? Plumbers? Who?


Moreover, you are now conflating quantum theory with general relativity, and setting both on one side against Newton on the other side. I hate to break this to you, Brent — take a deep breath — but general relativity and quantum mechanics are in direct and fundamental conflict. This means one or both theories must be wrong at some level of description.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 31st, 2018, 12:36 pm 

davidm » August 31st, 2018, 9:19 am]

Science, and scientists, most assuredly do not “move in a Newtonian world.” I challenge you to either support or retract this statement (I predict you will do neither, but merely go on blithely espousing it). After all, Brent, who introduced to world to relativity and quantum theory? Priests? Sorcerers? Plumbers? Who?


I get that you have nothing better to do than dog me trying to find anything of which you can convict of me "blithely espousing" to, but...

Other scientists, such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul M. Dirac, advanced Planck’s theory and made possible the development of quantum mechanics–a mathematical application of the quantum theory that maintains that energy is both matter and a wave, depending on certain variables. Quantum mechanics thus takes a probabilistic view of nature, sharply contrasting with classical mechanics, in which all precise properties of objects are, in principle, calculable. Today, the combination of quantum mechanics with Einstein’s theory of relativity is the basis of modern physics.


Einstein can be attributed to both models, both of which diverge from classical physics.

davidm » August 31st, 2018, 9:19 am]

Moreover, you are now conflating quantum theory with general relativity, and setting both on one side against Newton on the other side. I hate to break this to you, Brent — take a deep breath — but general relativity and quantum mechanics are in direct and fundamental conflict. This means one or both theories must be wrong at some level of description.


Not quite, one addresses the small, the other the universe as a whole, and yet, so far they do not translate from one to the other, String Theory is an attempt to unify the two, plus I would imagine T.O.E. tend to want to unify also, not necessarily slam dunk the other theory into non existence. Hence, "are in direct and fundamental conflict.", might not be a very accurate statement at all, but I suppose the intent has more to do with hoping to make me look stupid as I used quantum world and Einstein in juxtaposition to classical Newtonian physics.

No doubt it was my fault, last minute late night posts are often hasty and not well thought out.
But to clarify, that which is deemed a particle, or a quantum, I see as the product of wave interference and not really a particle at all. Quantum Mechanics seems obsessed trying to find the smallest "thing", but the substantial reality of that smallest "thing" continues to evaporate. This is because "things" arise at some point from "nothing". There is a present conservation of energy, which assumes it can be neither created or destroyed, but my mind tends towards the idea energy is being constantly created and destroyed, but balance of volume as such is constantly maintained in the universe.

Overall I prefer to think of the universe as a whole, so relativity tends to be my preference,
Consciousness though, seems to finds its way into both, the Block finds it when Time is no longer an objective flow, and quantum finds it when we open the box.

But really David, "I challenge you to either support or retract this statement (I predict you will do neither, but merely go on blithely espousing it)" This is a discussion forum, not the OK coral, and attempts to belittle such as "After all, Brent, who introduced to world to relativity and quantum theory? Priests? Sorcerers? Plumbers? Who?" would seem to be beneath the professionalism of a rationally moderated forum. But thank you for the opportunity for me to clarify a bit more as to how something can arise from nothing.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 31st, 2018, 1:44 pm 

Brent696 » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:56 pm wrote:
ronjanec » August 30th, 2018, 3:01 pm

“to extend the why ad infinitum”?

Brent, if existence had a beginning, there was almost certainly only one in particular finite reason or why that all existence began: I seriously doubt that there were multiple instantaneous different reasons at the exact same time to explain the reason or why(again, after the fact) existence began in the first place.


I am not barring the fact there is but one cause for creation, it is a matter of context. Within the Creation there is a choice of "either/or" where both present a different reality.

In Something rather than Nothing, it is not a choice of do this or that,

IOWs, you cannot speculate what if all this did not exist, it is an impossible speculation in a sense. Although I will admit there are ways around this but that might get into a value judgment about what is truly real, basically is any of this truly real, and such a topic would confuse this issue.

As to WHY, that definitive reason for this Universe, I expressed that above, maybe the second page, but in short it was to expand the ever expanding consciousness of Infinite (Necessary) Being.

But as you can tell, if one views consciousness as a mere by product of neural-chemical activity, which I consider merely a gateway, then such an explanation of the universe would have to be rejected outright.

Just a while back I also argued over the universes ability to be conscious, based on superior Information and Function, but this is hard for many to imagine as our self awareness is so limited. I am as incapable of discerning your level of awareness as you are mine. I can see similarities in our actions perhaps and behaviors, and assume you have an awareness like mine, but as we expand out to dog, insects, Life, and the universe itself the commonalities grow exponentially as does my ability to recognize consciousness.

But I boiled this reasoning down to one simple question, do we learn from the universe or is the universe learning from us. We objectify people all the time, apparently I am the crazy religious guy who believes in magic and fairy tales, it certainly would not take much to objectify the universe as the whole of it is so vastly different from ourselves.


I (too) am also the crazy religious guy around here Brent, and have been for close to 10 years now. Do you want to gang up with me on all those crazy atheists like they have been doing to poor little me for all these years? :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 31st, 2018, 2:26 pm 

ronjanec » August 31st, 2018, 1:44 pm

I (too) am also the crazy religious guy around here Brent, and have been for close to 10 years now. Do you want to gang up with me on all those crazy atheists like they have been doing to poor little me for all these years? :)


Oh Atheists don't bother me at all, it's more the Anti-theists who feel some need to proselytize their view using unscrupulous psychological inferences. I assume that is also why there seems to be a serious lack of true philosophical thinkers around here, but you've been here longer, you would probably know better than I. But I will give you a good 100 mediation points by the fact you have been able to survive here for so long.

But unlike those who can openly banter, I feel I must return to the OP lest I be accused of rummaging off topic, and destroying the flow of the thread.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm 

Yeah, it wasn’t easy Brent. Every time someone else who was very religious (like myself) would join the forum, they almost always got banned a very short time later. And I would again become very lonely and sad, and once again be the only religious nut posting here.

I am having a hard time coming up with anything new or interesting for this topic, and have also said pretty much everything I wanted to say about the same topic(I also had a very long thread about this topic a few years ago ‘Existence began with no pre-existing cause’): So I guess I am going to bail out of this thread now, unless someone else comes up with something new or interesting.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby mitchellmckain on August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm 

ronjanec » August 31st, 2018, 12:44 pm wrote:I (too) am also the crazy religious guy around here Brent, and have been for close to 10 years now. Do you want to gang up with me on all those crazy atheists like they have been doing to poor little me for all these years? :)


I wonder if that makes me the non-crazy religious guy around here. LOL Though Brent has called me anti-theist, but that may just have been jumping to the wrong conclusions at that time. Though it would be fair to say that I am more than a little agnostic and atheist despite being an evangelical Christian theist. First there is the fact that I wasn't raised by theists but by those who taught me all the best criticisms of American Xtianity. Add to that my being an agnostic with respect to the objective knowledge of the existence of God, how I strongly champion secularism, and my frequent defense of the rationality of atheism... and thus many would rightly say that I am batting quite a bit for the other team (no not that "other team"). On the other hand... honesty should require most theists to realize that they are more atheist than theist because they don't believe in most of the gods out there -- though I would say that some of the ones I don't believe in are Xtian deities

But on another note... my participation in forums has not always gone this way. The atheists in this forum are quite reasonable. In other forums I have had to do a lot more fighting against the irrationality of some of the atheists. But then I also haven't seen the more unreasonable religious in this forum either. If Brent seems a little unreasonable to some of us it is only relative to the average in this forum -- not at all unreasonable compared with some of those I have encountered in other forums. All in all I think this is a fantastic group of people here.


Ahhh but how to rectify our wandering from the topic for our little personal exchange....

First I would agree with Brent that davidm exaggerates the conflict between GR and QM. It is only that we haven't been able to combine them into a single theory. Its not like they make predictions which contradict each other. On the other hand, I agree with davidm that Brent's attitude towards science and Newtonian physics is totally off base. On the other hand, I think it is rather revealing if your are trying to understand how Brent's mind works. It is true that Newtonian physics left very little room for rational religious belief for it made the world look like a gigantic clockwork mechanism in which supernatural realities had no place. This leads us to the explanation that Brent makes his religious ideology the judge of all the works of science.

But then this would just be going one step back to a previous diversion from the topic... ho hum...

Perhaps the original topic of why something rather than nothing is mostly exhausted.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 31st, 2018, 3:40 pm 

mitchellmckain » August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm

I wonder if that makes me the non-crazy religious guy around here. LOL Though Brent has called me anti-theist, but that may just have been jumping to the wrong conclusions at that time. Though it would be fair to say that I am more than a little agnostic and atheist despite being an evangelical Christian theist. First there is the fact that I wasn't raised by theists but by those who taught me all the best criticisms of American Xtianity. Add to that my being an agnostic with respect to the objective knowledge of the existence of God, how I strongly champion secularism, and my frequent defense of the rationality of atheism... and thus many would rightly say that I am batting quite a bit for the other team .............


If you can accept this in the spirit of fun in which it is offered (The term schizophrenic comes to mind)

mitchellmckain » August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm

If Brent seems a little unreasonable to some of us it is only relative to the average in this forum -- not at all unreasonable compared with some of those I have encountered in other forums.


Now I might be blushing a bit, we have to watch out for those fanatics, everybody thinking they have it all figured out, go figure....

mitchellmckain » August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm All in all I think this is a fantastic group of people here.


I think it is rather revealing if your are trying to understand how Brent's mind works.


Oh don't even go there, is scares the heck out of me too

mitchellmckain » August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm

It is true that Newtonian physics left very little room for rational religious belief for it made the world look like a gigantic clockwork mechanism in which supernatural realities had no place. This leads us to the explanation that Brent makes his religious ideology the judge of all the works of science.


Now that might not be truly fair, obviously there are many religious people who are ruled by their theology or specifically doctrines over common sense. I draw the line between certain scientific theories as I support one over another but I have not blatantly stood against an obvious, although when it comes to theories what seems obvious to one person is not always obvious to another. Apparently even the mind can create something out of nothing (that's me referencing the OP),

I use Newtonian physics every time I drive my truck, and you should be glad I am a believer in it within such a context. But as for my mind, when I look to theology, I would not let it over ride what physics allows, in my thread the Physics of Christ, your critique was to try to categorize it doctrinally but no one looked at the physics so its left gathering dust. But such physics has to do with the nature of Infinite and finite realities and these are scientifically still in flux as theories debate the particulars so I would not expect a consensus ultimately. I have no problem with science, only when it claims to know or understand things it does not does it seem to me problematic.
User avatar
Brent696
Banned User
 
Posts: 191
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 31st, 2018, 3:53 pm 

mitchellmckain,

When you first joined here, I checked out your personal profile and noticed that you had a ‘masters of divinity’: I always wondered about your personal religious beliefs, and after your last comment, it’s good to know more about them.

“I wonder if that makes me the non-crazy religious guy around here. LOL” Mitchell, you will have to ask the many heathens who are members of the forum about that, because they are the ones who will make the final determination in regards to the same.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby mitchellmckain on August 31st, 2018, 5:34 pm 

Brent696 » August 31st, 2018, 2:40 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain » August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm

I wonder if that makes me the non-crazy religious guy around here. LOL Though Brent has called me anti-theist, but that may just have been jumping to the wrong conclusions at that time. Though it would be fair to say that I am more than a little agnostic and atheist despite being an evangelical Christian theist. First there is the fact that I wasn't raised by theists but by those who taught me all the best criticisms of American Xtianity. Add to that my being an agnostic with respect to the objective knowledge of the existence of God, how I strongly champion secularism, and my frequent defense of the rationality of atheism... and thus many would rightly say that I am batting quite a bit for the other team .............


If you can accept this in the spirit of fun in which it is offered (The term schizophrenic comes to mind)

In this I think you are guilty of confusing schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder, and to the latter I can only say... what do you expect of a Gemini?


mitchellmckain » August 31st, 2018, 3:11 pm
It is true that Newtonian physics left very little room for rational religious belief for it made the world look like a gigantic clockwork mechanism in which supernatural realities had no place. This leads us to the explanation that Brent makes his religious ideology the judge of all the works of science.


Now that might not be truly fair, obviously there are many religious people who are ruled by their theology or specifically doctrines over common sense. I draw the line between certain scientific theories as I support one over another but I have not blatantly stood against an obvious, although when it comes to theories what seems obvious to one person is not always obvious to another...
[/quote]
I will grant you that you hardly on the extreme end of the spectrum and perhaps what you do is pretty normal for the non-scientist.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby BadgerJelly on August 31st, 2018, 5:48 pm 

Religious or not everyone is clearly crazy except for me! How do you think that makes me feel :(
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests