|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Because I don't count abstract entities as "things" for the purposes of this discussion. Which I do because I am more interested in dealing with the actual question than in twisting it with semantic games to invent artificial contradictions. Also because the question of whether abstract entities exist at all, how they exist, and whether they can exist in the absence of concrete entities is still open. Consider the common philosophical usage:
things are items which possess properties stand in relations to each other and undergo the changes which constitute events
Oxford Companion to Philosophy p871 This is more in line with the definition of "thing" that we need to use to gain a coherent viewpoint. Abstract entities do not change, even if some (numbers) may be held to fulfil the other two parts of the definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: Because I don't count abstract entities as "things" for the purposes of this discussion. That explains a lot, but doesn't in itself make me wrong, does it? I'd suggest we ask the O.P. writer for his definition of "things" for the purpose of this discussion. The only example Doc A gives in the O.P is god, so we know that both existence and being clearly defined are irrelevant to his definition. But it's clear that our disagreement is due to the fact that the O.P. question "why is there something rather than nothing" means something different to each of us. Let's see how Adequate and other participants define "thing".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well it certainly seems paradoxical in a paradox defying sort of way.
This whole thing boils down to defining both "nothing" and the nature of existence....... If there is a more nonsense inspiring branch of philosophy than ontology then I have yet to find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Well, yes it does. The fact that my view doesn't have the problems that your view does pretty clearly indicates that the problem is at your end, not mine.
quote: I'd say that the fact that he doesn't see a logical contradiction is pretty clear evidence that his view is close to mine rather than yours.
quote: I'm pretty sure that finding a way to call a state where no concrete entities exist "something" rather than "nothing" is not the point of the question at all. So far as I can see your arguments are nothing more than the trivial playing of semantic games which go nowhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Straggler writes: This whole thing boils down to defining both "nothing" and the nature of existence How would you define "thing" for the purposes of the thread, given that the only O.P. clue is "god" being a thing? (The definition of no-thing follows automatically, I would think).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: Well, yes it does. The fact that my view doesn't have the problems that your view does pretty clearly indicates that the problem is at your end, not mine. The O.P. question is problematic for everyone. But there's no point in the thread if no-one even attempts to find a more satisfactory answer than "brute fact".
PaulK writes: I'd say that the fact that he doesn't see a logical contradiction is pretty clear evidence that his view is close to mine rather than yours. "Nothing" being internally consistent just means we can't find an easy answer to the question on that basis. It would have to be internally consistent if a logical contradiction is a thing. Adequate's point was that it's impossible for nothing to contain to contradictory "things". So, are you sure he'll be closer to your view? We'll see.
PaulK writes: I'm pretty sure that finding a way to call a state where no concrete entities exist "something" rather than "nothing" is not the point of the question at all. Remember, by my definition of things, it's you who's turning nothing into something by filling it with things. And what is the point of the question, by the way?
PaulK writes: So far as I can see your arguments are nothing more than the trivial playing of semantic games which go nowhere. Why isn't it a "semantic game" to have to exclude some things from "everything" in order to make your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If all conscious life were to cease to exist, meaning that there was no means of observing or measuring anything, would anything continue to exist? If not, then it would follow that everything is nothing, which also means as others have written, that nothing is everything?
Hope that clears it all up. I think I'll go to bed and ponder that for a decade or two. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Because something is more beautiful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: But misconstruing the question is not a way to get an answer.
quote: Given that you are misconstruing the question in order to create a logical contradiction, it's highly unlikely that he agrees with you.
quote: Of course that isn't true, since I am not adding any "things" at all. All the "adding" comes from your definitions, therefore it's you doing it.
quote: To find out where explanation stops, the most basic level of existence.
quote: Because it is honestly understanding the question rather than twisting it to dismiss it with a trivial "answer" that tells us nothing of any interest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: But misconstruing the question is not a way to get an answer. I agree entirely.
PaulK writes: bluegenes writes: "Nothing" being internally consistent just means we can't find an easy answer to the question on that basis. It would have to be internally consistent if a logical contradiction is a thing. Adequate's point was that it's impossible for nothing to contain two contradictory "things". Given that you are misconstruing the question in order to create a logical contradiction, it's highly unlikely that he agrees with you. Disagreeing with you on the definitions of something and nothing is not misconstruing the question. And I'll ask you to demonstrate your powers of telepathy if you keep attributing motives to me.
PaulK writes: bluegenes writes: Remember, by my definition of things, it's you who's turning nothing into something by filling it with things. Of course that isn't true, since I am not adding any "things" at all. All the "adding" comes from your definitions, therefore it's you doing it. Please don't fantasize about "my" definitions. I didn't invent the commonly understood meaning of the words involved, and I didn't write the O.E.D.
PaulK writes: bluegenes writes: And what is the point of the question, by the way? To find out where explanation stops, the most basic level of existence. It's from physics, not philosophy, that such things might be found out. You don't find out things by selecting definitions from one subculture.
PaulK writes: bluegenes writes: Why isn't it a "semantic game" to have to exclude some things from "everything" in order to make your point? Because it is honestly understanding the question rather than twisting it to dismiss it with a trivial "answer" that tells us nothing of any interest. Like "brute fact" you mean? BTW, don't get too serious over "nothing". It is, after all, entirely a human invention. Unlike something. Edited by bluegenes, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It's from physics, not philosophy, that such things might be found out. You don't find out things by selecting definitions from one subculture. Bingo Good too see that at least someone appreciates this rather obvious fact. Unfortunately (as Straggler indirectly inferred) Ontology tends to trail current understanding by a time period measured in large fractions of centuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
bluegenes writes: How would you define "thing" for the purposes of the thread, given that the only O.P. clue is "god" being a thing? Jeez!! Defining a "thing" in the context of determining what does or does not constitute existence has befuddled better men than I for more time than we have here. And most of them have come up with little more than ontological gibberish as far as I can see. But in general I think I agree with you about possibilities and other such abstract entities qualifying as "things". So "nothing" is an absence of all such "things". So absolute nothing would be a complete absence of possibilities, contradictions, time, space, consciousness, mind, etc. etc. An absence of reality (whatever that means) perhaps? Is this self-contradictory? I didn't think it was but now I don't know. My head hurts. And that isn't just because I went to the Earls Court beer festival last night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
If all conscious life were to cease to exist, meaning that there was no means of observing or measuring anything, would anything continue to exist? If not, then it would follow that everything is nothing, which also means as others have written, that nothing is everything? Hope that clears it all up. I think I'll go to bed and ponder that for a decade or two.If all conscious life were to cease to exist, meaning that there was no means of observing or measuring anything, would anything continue to exist? If not, then it would follow that everything is nothing, which also means as others have written, that nothing is everything? Hope that clears it all up. I think I'll go to bed and ponder that for a decade or two.
Thats the whole if a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it dose it make a sound thing right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
frako writes: Thats the whole if a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it dose it make a sound thing right? In a way yes. If a tree falls it sets up ripples in the air, which then is sensed within your ear, which sends a signal to the brain which we then perceive as sound. At what point is it a sound? Prior to it interacting with your ear drum there is nothing but the ripples in the air. Is that sound? With the bigger picture, (with my absolutely minimal understanding of QM), it seems to have been shown empirically that a particle does not become something that we can perceive until it is actually observed or measured. Without a conscious being to observe or measure is it something? I suppose the way the OP asks the question it would be something but maybe not. Beats me. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: THen it follows that you would also agree that any interpretation of the question that leaves it trivially answerable - both in the sense that the answer is obvious, and in the sense that the answer itself is trivial and tells us nothing - should be regarded as highly suspect.
quote: Of course it is NOT a matter of simple disagreement over definitions, it is a disagreement over the definitions to be used in understanding the question. And since your interpretation is highly suspect (see above) there are good grounds for thinking that you do misconstrue the question, and it is certain that your interpretation does lead to a non-productive logical contradiction.
quote: I am certainly not fantasising when I point out that those are the definitions you chose to use.
quote: Certainly I expect physics to provide the most plausible basis for reality, however I am far from certain that physics will succeed in explaining everything. It is too easy to ask "why" questions and logical necessity is too hard to establish (and likely false as discussed here). However, that is a rather odd statement coming from someone who has been using philosophical arguments - and not even good ones - in this discussion.
quote: Simply appealing to "brute fact" without reason would be similar, yes. But pointing out that the only plausible answer is to appeal to brute fact - however much we might wish it otherwise, with reasons why, is quite different.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024