442 replies to this topic

[Blink]

It is true you can’t conceive nothing if you conceive of it as something.  Nothing is not something to be conceived.    However we can conceive of non existence and talk about it otherwise this conversation would be nonsense.  The question does not ask why there is one thing or another but why there is anything at all.

Nothing is a handy concept when talking about the absence of things within a context. For example - there is nothing in the cookie jar. So in this case we conceive nothing as an empty cookie jar. But I don't think we can conceive the absence of existence itself. We always need a context, and the context is always existence in some form or other.

[cats_lover]

 

Nothing is a handy concept when talking about the absence of things within a context. For example - there is nothing in the cookie jar. So in this case we conceive nothing as an empty cookie jar. But I don't think we can conceive the absence of existence itself. We always need a context, and the context is always existence in some form or other.

 

 

I agree that humans have great trouble understanding these concepts; anyway, using logic, there should be "nothing" rather than a universe.

[shadowhawk]

 

It is true you can’t conceive nothing if you conceive of it as something.  Nothing is not something to be conceived.    However we can conceive of non existence and talk about it otherwise this conversation would be nonsense.  The question does not ask why there is one thing or another but why there is anything at all.

Nothing is a handy concept when talking about the absence of things within a context. For example - there is nothing in the cookie jar. So in this case we conceive nothing as an empty cookie jar. But I don't think we can conceive the absence of existence itself. We always need a context, and the context is always existence in some form or other.

 

The question asks Why there is something rather than nothing.  Not to hard to understand because we can conceive and discuss nothing.  That is how we can discuss it.  When you claim we cant conceive t he absence of existence itself, you are conceiving it otherwise we are talking gobligoop.  Even though our context is existence we can ask why there is something rather than nothing and it makes perfect sense..

[HoldingTheFaith]

In the beginning, everything was whole and stagnant. Eventually It decided to fragmentate into lower forms of creative consciousness and invented a myriad of realms and games. In this specific corner we have a matrix or game based in deceit, hedonism and predation/parasitism. Although nature is unfair and powerful manipulative consciousnesses control our acts negatively everything is just a game we decided to play, as struggle is highly appreciated by Consciousness. The bigger game is to forget who we are, this is, fragmentate, and then across unfathomable aeons recover our memory, which is equivalent to merge into ever fewer consciousnesses until we get back to square one.

[shadowhawk]

The question is why is there "everything that was stagnant." 

[shadowhawk]

[Soma]

Just because we live in a constant state of now, does not mean that things cannot change, including our memory...Change happens, but doesn't need time to happen. But it's the fact that things change that lead to us creating the concept of time.

Generally time has been defined as the measurement of change, going back to Aristotle.
http://faculty.uca.e...the Measure.htm
Essentially time and change are synonymous and it is redundant and tautological to assert that events change in time. This leads to another tantalizing mystery- if time is an illusion, and I agree that there is much evidence to support this, then it may very well be that change is also an illusion. This was actually the conclusion of the earliest human philosophy- vedanta. Change was referred to as "Maya", an illusory appearance. This was later echoed in Greek philosophy from figures such as Parmenides, who claimed that time (and therefore change) were illusory.

Maybe science with its very different methodology will eventually reach a similar conclusion to that of certain philosophers of antiquity, using only logic, insight, and introspection.

We may be enmeshed in that which is without beginning, timeless, and ultimately unchanging.

Edited by Soma, 30 October 2014 - 04:44 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I followed this until the last.  Every thing we know of has a cause and is in time.  I know we have different theories of time but this has been dealt with elsewhere.  Here the issue is being itself.  Why  is there something rather then nothing?

[Soma]

Why is there something rather then nothing?

The problem is, it's ultimately a meaningless question.

Even in Krauss' "universe from nothing" model, the "nothing" is really a "something"- a volatile field of quantum potentiality that due to its inherent volatility, automatically generates universes. This then begs the question- where did that "field" come from?

And this is where the perennial "unmoved mover" debate resumes once again. Either that quantum field was/is un-generated and simply IS, or it was generated from something else. If it was the latter, that same problem continues ad infinitum and you are left with infinitely regressive sequence of causality.

But curiously, in the final analysis, you are still left with something that exists yet was uncreated. If the quantum field was produced by something else, which was produced by something else...stretching infinitely into the "past" (at least, causal past), then that sequence of cause-and-effect which generates everything must be, in of itself, un-generated. So, either the quantum field was un-generated, or the dynamic process which generated that field (and everything else) is un-generated. Either way, by necessity, there must be something is un-generated.

Now, something that is un-generated, is by virtue of that, simply existent. What I mean by that is that it has "existence" or "being" as a fundamental aspect. It simply IS. There is no reason or purpose for its existence. A reason and/or a purpose necessitates a cause.

Now, the question "why" presupposes causality. When someone asks "why", they are inquiring as to a cause, an explanation. Something that is un-generated has no cause, and thus, there is no "why" for it's existence. It's being has no explanation. Mind you, this has been exceedingly difficult for the human mind. If you follow where all the "whys" lead you, you reach something that has no "why". It has a parallel in physics, where if you go back far enough in time closer to the big bang, all of the laws of physics break down and are no longer applicable. Needless to say, they are meaningless at that point.

There is no reason there is something rather than nothing.

Edited by Soma, 30 October 2014 - 09:32 PM.

[shadowhawk]

That is your faith.  Fine but there are many problems with it such as an infinite regress of becoming things.  What we experience is a becoming existence of cause and effect so we naturally have our topic.  I don't think you can do away with it as you have attempted to do. 

[Soma]

No, that's no what I said, I haven't attempted to "do away" with anything. The most likely scenario is that the quantum vacuum is, itself, timeless and causeless. In that respect, it has no reason for being. Something that just is has no reason for being. And I don't mean to imply that the vacuum is "god" or any such nonsense.

What I said was, even if it was a case of infinite regression, that process itself would qualify as timeless and causeless, as it would be external to time and without beginning. It has nothing to do with "faith".

I suppose you would say that Yahweh created the universe, as you seem to be on a one man mission to convert everyone on these boards to fundamentalist christianity.

Edited by Soma, 01 November 2014 - 12:09 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Now you are going way beyond what I said.  Relax, I am not poking at your fear of talking to a theist.  If you don't see faith in your answer and I do it won't be the end of the world,  You think the question is meaningless and you do this by claiming material is eternal.  But that is not faith.  OK.

[Soma]

Well, I would say that, since we know that material and energy are the same, I would say that it is, but I would qualify that by saying that it is a-temporal. A-temporality (timelessness) is distinct from something that is eternal (endlessly enduring), but that may be hard to conceptualize. That is the most likely scenario. If you want to label that "faith", that is up to you. I notice that you do that with what everyone says. I find that to be a tired and worn out tactic that you use, as you seem to think that it puts your religious beliefs on an equal footing. No, it doesn't. I know you will never accept the possibility of that which is inherently uncaused, unless it is your biblical lord of hosts.

I'm really not interested in having a "debate" with a theist, only because I know that there is no such thing as a debate with a theist. Only a theist can be utterly dismantled in a debate and yet still be assured that they won. But in actuality, the time a theist can win a debate is when they argue with an empty chair (as in your video above).

Edited by Soma, 01 November 2014 - 05:34 AM.

[serp777]

The better question would be why there would be nothing instead of something. In order to know what nothing is you have to know what something is.

 

For instance nothing is still something because it has properties--nothing doesn't have anything, and nothing is different from something. Both of these two properties mean that our traditional sense of nothing is nothing but a misnomer for the minimum requirements of nothing.

[shadowhawk]

We have gone over this before.  Nothing is by definition not something.  Shall I quote the discussion?

[serp777]

We have gone over this before.  Nothing is by definition not something.  Shall I quote the discussion?

 

That's because the concept of nothing is contradictory. It isn't a valid concept. Nothing has properties which make it something by definition. For instance it has the property that it is different from something and that it is the absence of something. Your definition and logic is inherently flawed. Shall i quote the definition of a property?

Edited by serp777, 22 November 2014 - 09:13 AM.

[shadowhawk]

It is a valid concept.  It is not contradictory unless you try to make it something.  Nothing has no properties which is where you are making your mistake.  If you want to quote the definition of a property or anything else, go ahead.  However, you will be saying nothing about nothing. 

[serp777]

It is a valid concept.  It is not contradictory unless you try to make it something.  Nothing has no properties which is where you are making your mistake.  If you want to quote the definition of a property or anything else, go ahead.  However, you will be saying nothing about nothing. 

 

It is not a valid concept. Any definition of nothing that you will give has certain properties which then make it something. if it doesn't have the property that it has the absence of something, then that means it has the property that it is unknown whether it has something. It's an imagination from philosophers, just like the half division of steps preventing someone from ever reaching a destination. 

 

"However, you will be saying nothing about nothing."

 

False. This kind of statement reflects giving up. This is just a statement and a bland assertion.

[shadowhawk]

I know this seems difficult for you to grasp, but nothing has no properties.  No use saying the obvious again.  Ho hummm

[serp777]

I know this seems difficult for you to grasp, but nothing has no properties.  No use saying the obvious again.  Ho hummm

 

That would be the property of having no properties. It's fundamentally contradictory. if it has no properties then we can't even talk about and then it's not a valid concept. I'm not sure how much more simple this argument can get. If you want to deny like usual then there is no use spelling out crystal clear logic. Ho herp derp.

[shadowhawk]

No properties and that is not a property.

[serp777]

No properties and that is not a property.

 

Yes it is. if it has no properties then you can't talk about it and it does not exist.

 

it has the property that it has no properties which is contradictory. This is a property because it is a characteristic or attribute,by definition. Absolute nothing is fundamentally contradictory. Nothing does not exist and is therefore not a valid concept.

[shadowhawk]

You and I have just talked about the concept of non existence.  Didn't seem to stop you from speaking out of both sides of your mouth,

[serp777]

You and I have just talked about the concept of non existence.  Didn't seem to stop you from speaking out of both sides of your mouth,

 

Speaking from both sides of my mouth? Lmao. It's just a meaningless word if it has no properties, except I'm the one saying it has properties which obviously doesn't contradict the fact that I can type about it.

[shadowhawk]

You can't help it if you have to make something out of nothing.  That explains a lot.

[StevesPetRat]

Check out Max Tegmark's papers on the mathematical multiverse. This one may be somewhat technical, but it is my favorite. He discusses 4 levels of "parallel" universes. I will address the highest level here. The universe may be simply an expression of some sufficiently complex mathematical structure; all other of the uncountably infinite such possible structures may exist as disjoint "parallel universes" with unthinkably different laws of physics.

This might seem to violate "Occam's Razor," but in fact the opposite is true. For which is more complex: The specific number 3248723984523875623874298732097402482375982369812749862394732, or the set of all integers? It is far shorter in bytes to generate the latter than the former. n := 0, n:=n+1 is all you need. Similarly, it may be simplest that everything that is possible "exists" (though in such a "place" as to be forever unobservable to us), rather than there is some special reason we have these seemingly arbitrary laws of physics based on certain particular symmetry groups.

 

You have to keep in mind the universe is, essentially, a vacuum, filled with mathematical constructs known as "fields." Particles, e.g. electrons, are simply mathematical excitations (specifically, higher eigenstates) of the appropriate field (e.g. the Fermionic electron field).

Time is a dimension with a negative (astronomy convention; positive is physics convention) pseudometric signature. This gives it distinct properties from the other dimensions. As there are only 4 dimensions in this universe, there are really only 3 possibilities: 4 spatial, 0 time dimensions, 3 spatial and 1 time dimension, and 2 spatial and 2 time dimensions. The former produces a totally static universe in which nothing like life is possible. The latter... I don't know, it would be pretty awesome though. As to why there are 4 dimensions, see the above.

 

As to "Why is there math?" I'm not sure. Perhaps there is a 5th level of parallel universes, in which alternatives to the mathematics we can conceive of are expressed as some sort of pseudophysical reality all their own, and perhaps there is a 6th level higher than that, in which an alternative to semantical structures themselves are expressed as some inconceivable thing.

 

Ah, maybe there's a reason being in physics melted my brain...

[shadowhawk]

This is interesting and food for good discussion but it does not address the topic.

[serp777]

You can't help it if you have to make something out of nothing.  That explains a lot.

 

Exactly you can't help it not having properties, hence you're wrong again.

Edited by serp777, 22 November 2014 - 11:40 PM.

[shadowhawk]

You are the one who cant help but have properties.  You find it beyond you to have the concept of nothing.

[serp777]

You are the one who cant help but have properties.  You find it beyond you to have the concept of nothing.

 

No you are.  Nothing is a bad concept since it has the property that it is the absence of something, which makes it something and is thus contradictory. It's not beyond me, although this argument is clearly going over your head ironically.