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 DragonFly on August 31st, 2018, 6:06 pm 

Yes, the inexhaustible something conclusion has exhausted the topic, and, so, as I've already begun to suggest: What are the implications of there having to ever be something, with no option, etc.?
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby Brent696 on August 31st, 2018, 6:23 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 31st, 2018, 5:48 pm wrote:Religious or not everyone is clearly crazy except for me! How do you think that makes me feel :(


Ab-normal

I'm still trying to figure our Badger jelly, some kind of roadkill haggis, I have no idea.

Found a joke about someone trying to make badger jelly, but they couldn't get it to set. Didn't understand that one either. Needless to say I am lost...........
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 223
Joined: 12 Jul 2018


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby ronjanec on August 31st, 2018, 6:32 pm 

BadgerJelly » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:48 pm wrote:Religious or not everyone is clearly crazy except for me! How do you think that makes me feel :(


“Everyone is crazy except for me and thee, and I’m not so sure about thee!”(source unknown)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby DragonFly on September 1st, 2018, 9:18 pm 

DragonFly » August 31st, 2018, 5:06 pm wrote:Yes, the inexhaustible something conclusion has exhausted the topic, and, so, as I've already begun to suggest: What are the implications of there having to ever be something, with no option, etc.?



1. It was never created, thus it can’t have a plan. Random.

2. Everything possible is inherent in it and all variation is already complete, from the unsurpassable to the ever surpassable and all that’s in between. Eterne.

3. It is ever transformative and can’t be still; else, zippo goings on. Energy.

4. Earth is but the apex of it in our own neighborhood. It’s just OK.

5. A humongous amount of material is no sweat to it. Easy. Free lunch.

6. We don’t really do anything; the something does us.

7. Experiencing is a benefit, this seeming to be the message, if there is any.

8. Any personal narrative will do. We don’t get to choose our soap opera.

9. All appears to go from the simpler to the more complex. Evolution/combination.

10. Very long times are usually seen for great progress. Slow as molasses.

11. Eternalism can’t be told apart from presentism or even from consciousism.

12. We have to operate, and do it well, or death arrives early. A must.

13. We live in the early days, the universe about .02% along. Infancy.

14. The new ‘Jack Ryan’ series on Amazon is great. Movie quality.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby hyksos on September 2nd, 2018, 5:24 pm 

davidm » August 28th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:
hyksos » August 27th, 2018, 7:49 pm wrote:The section you have quoted does not address the origin of the Law of Physics. This is just another section about the existence question. (which I neither raised nor addressed in my post at all)


He addresses this specifically here:

Many observed features of both fundamental physics and cosmology seem to be arbitrary, from the large-scale structure of stars and galaxies to the masses of elementary particles. Many physicists now suspect that the laws of physics in our observable universe are just one possibility among a very large “landscape” of physically realizable possibilities, known as “vacua” (since they are local minimum-energy states), each of which features different particles, forces, couplings, and even numbers of spatial dimensions [48].6 In string theory, estimates for the size of this landscape throw around numbers of the form 10500. One might take the attitude that the underlying equations of string theory are somehow maximally elegant, even if the specific low-energy manifestation of them that we observe is not. But the lesson is that at present the idea that the ultimate laws are as simple as possible is a hope, not something suggested by the evidence. Moreover, the prospect still faces the challenge of explanatory regression, as one would left to explain why the underlying laws should be so simple

And! ... that paragraph and its contents do not address the origin of the Laws of physics either. That is insufficient answer.

Why do they not? I have already expanded on that in fine detail. Scroll up and read.

But allow me to qualify my original language. I did not mean to assert that Carroll has left out the subject in terms of textual content. He gave slight lip service in a few paragraphs (I already said this). And its tucked in the back of his paper. (I already said this above, scroll up). My final assertion, given in legal terms , so that nobody can harp on me like this is thus :

Carroll's pithy attempt to address the question of the origin of the Laws of physics is a failed attempt and does not rise to the question in any exhaustive way.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby hyksos on September 2nd, 2018, 5:32 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 30th, 2018, 9:44 pm wrote:I was trying to put this to Hyksos. I mentioned Husserl because he, unlike Heidegger, stopped short of getting into hermeneutics and simply focused on phenomenon. In this sense the terms “something” and “nothing” have a felt experiential “weight” to them, yet they are not something we can articulate with much precision unless we’re to apply them abstractly to mathematical language.

But phenomena themselves follow very specific regulated patterns. In other words, the phenomena follow rules. These rules are what we called the Laws of Physics.

Thus even in a completely Husserlian dissection, the origins of the Laws of physics is still a valid question, and vis-a-vis Carroll, have not been addressed sufficiently.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Something rather than Nothing.

Postby dandelion on September 9th, 2018, 4:50 am 

I’m still lost about the more precise problem. What is buried? I commented that there is a huge ontology with comparatively little explanation. Paraphrasing Carroll because I can’t be bothered quoting exactly the youtube I linked earlier here, I think there is a suggestion time may not be fundamental because it is possible to imagine different cases of superposition, but also there are lots of states and a person’s clock can correlate with a certain state, so that there is no change, just time. I think then, there is the suggestion of reduction to an eternal, linear, changeless time. If this paraphrasing is accurate and this is the something rather than nothing that was referred to as problematic, I’d agree because it didn’t seem to follow, or I don’t get it. More interestingly perhaps from other links, is how does treating Hilbert space as something compare with treating experience etc., as something, or many worlds and stringy multiverse, etc. as something?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 02 May 2014


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests