Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 366 (627856)
08-04-2011 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 4:26 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
Don't be shy about explaining why.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 4:26 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 6:03 PM PaulK has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 242 of 366 (627862)
08-04-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by PaulK
08-04-2011 4:44 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 6:32 PM bluegenes has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 243 of 366 (627863)
08-04-2011 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 9:42 AM


Re: The absence of possibilities
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 9:42 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 6:33 PM Straggler has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 244 of 366 (627867)
08-04-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 6:03 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
That explains a lot, but doesn't in itself make me wrong, does it?
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 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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 6:03 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 7:01 PM PaulK has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 245 of 366 (627868)
08-04-2011 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Straggler
08-04-2011 6:09 PM


Re: The absence of possibilities
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 6:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2011 7:49 AM bluegenes has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 246 of 366 (627869)
08-04-2011 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
08-04-2011 6:32 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2011 6:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2011 1:37 AM bluegenes has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 247 of 366 (627872)
08-04-2011 7:15 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by frako, posted 08-05-2011 10:16 AM GDR has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 248 of 366 (627877)
08-04-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2011 1:58 AM


Because something is more beautiful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2011 1:58 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 366 (627896)
08-05-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 7:01 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
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".
But misconstruing the question is not a way to get an answer.
quote:
"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".
Given that you are misconstruing the question in order to create a logical contradiction, it's highly unlikely that he agrees with you.
quote:
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.
quote:
And what is the point of the question, by the way?
To find out where explanation stops, the most basic level of existence.
quote:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 7:01 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by bluegenes, posted 08-05-2011 5:17 AM PaulK has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 250 of 366 (627903)
08-05-2011 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
08-05-2011 1:37 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2011 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by cavediver, posted 08-05-2011 6:50 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2011 12:32 PM bluegenes has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 251 of 366 (627906)
08-05-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by bluegenes
08-05-2011 5:17 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by bluegenes, posted 08-05-2011 5:17 AM bluegenes has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 252 of 366 (627908)
08-05-2011 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by bluegenes
08-04-2011 6:33 PM


Re: The absence of possibilities
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by bluegenes, posted 08-04-2011 6:33 PM bluegenes has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 253 of 366 (627917)
08-05-2011 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by GDR
08-04-2011 7:15 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by GDR, posted 08-04-2011 7:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by GDR, posted 08-05-2011 10:49 AM frako has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 254 of 366 (627920)
08-05-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by frako
08-05-2011 10:16 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by frako, posted 08-05-2011 10:16 AM frako has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 255 of 366 (627929)
08-05-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by bluegenes
08-05-2011 5:17 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
I agree entirely.
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:
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.
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:
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.
I am certainly not fantasising when I point out that those are the definitions you chose to use.
quote:
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.
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:
Like "brute fact" you mean?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by bluegenes, posted 08-05-2011 5:17 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 5:22 AM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024