Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 256 of 366 (628010)
08-06-2011 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by PaulK
08-05-2011 12:32 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
'Morning, Paul.
PaulK writes:
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.
I think you've got me wrong in some ways, and I'm sure the confusion's largely my fault. The fact that I can literally and correctly answer the O.P. question "because only something can be", does not mean I think I've solved the problem of existence, and actually demonstrated the necessity of "something". I'd be famous had I done that! It's just a shot across the bows, and highlights the difficulty of language in relation to discussing "nothing" as much as anything else.
PaulK writes:
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.
The definitions certainly shouldn't be arbitrary, and we both seem to be claiming each other's are. In order to decide what a "thing" is, the best method is to test against the concept of absolute nothing.
You wanted to use "state" in relation to nothing. So, if we take states, put them nowhere for no time, what do we get? No states. Nothing. Just as with a horse placed nowhere for no time, and we have no horse.
A useful way of looking at absolute nothing is as if it were a black hole. It'll destroy any "thing", and turn it to no-thing.
Try "reality". Put it nowhere for no time, and you're left with nothing.
Nothing is no thing, or non-existence, so any actual thing should be incompatible with it. So, we can test our definitions.
The question about any seeming paradoxes that we come up with is: are they due to the problem of "something beings" trying to deal with absolute nothing in a "something language", or do they really indicate the impossibility of absolute nothing.
I doubt if we can answer that conclusively.
The "absolute nothing" concept is also necessarily our invention as we've only experienced its opposite.
If someone asks you the O.P. question (and it must have happened in your dealings with creationists), they are actually asking "why doesn't this thing I've imagined exist rather than the reality around us". People do this quite often. "Why isn't there heaven on earth" for example.
In a way, it's like going to Kansas, and asking "why is there Kansas rather than the Land of Oz."
There's an element of silliness whenever people ask why there isn't another reality rather than this one.
Speaking of creationists, Jewish mythology starts with our friend absolutely nothing + one thing. Then the thing creates everything else.
This legacy may be one of the reasons that we all have a tendency to take the "nothing" proposition more seriously than we should.
A creationist asking "why is there something rather than nothing" is inadvertantly asking why a world invented by humans doesn't exist rather than the real one. Why the hell should it?
I think you're treating the O.P. question as a serious philosophical question (which it certainly can be - why is there existence, etc.) whereas I have a tendency to treat it as a rather silly question that's fun to discuss.
PaulK writes:
However, that is a rather odd statement coming from someone who has been using philosophical arguments - and not even good ones - in this discussion.
I don't see a line between science and philosophy. Anything concerning reality (and its possible absence as in this case) is the province of science (and philosophy).
Is your idea of good philosophy sticking things into nothing?
Non-existence can't be a reality, not anywhere, and not for a split second.
At the same time, we could never prove that something is necessary, or not on current knowledge, anyway. It'd be front page news if someone did.
BTW, if someone describes another "something" reality, "a world where there's a golden ocean stretching to near infinity" for example, and asks why that doesn't exist rather than this one, we wouldn't be able to answer the question, and you'd presumably end up with "brute fact".
Do you understand why I see people making up alternatives to this world, and then asking why they're not there as rather silly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2011 12:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 6:23 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 257 of 366 (628014)
08-06-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by bluegenes
08-06-2011 5:22 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
I think you've got me wrong in some ways, and I'm sure the confusion's largely my fault. The fact that I can literally and correctly answer the O.P. question "because only something can be", does not mean I think I've solved the problem of existence, and actually demonstrated the necessity of "something". I'd be famous had I done that! It's just a shot across the bows, and highlights the difficulty of language in relation to discussing "nothing" as much as anything else.
I don't think that pointing out the complexities is important - at least not compared with understanding the question correctly and trying to figure out as much as we can about the answer. I think I've done that and not seen much in the way of response.
quote:
The definitions certainly shouldn't be arbitrary, and we both seem to be claiming each other's are. In order to decide what a "thing" is, the best method is to test against the concept of absolute nothing.
NO! NO! NO!
The choice of definitions should be about understanding the question as it was meant, not going off into confusing philosophy that misses the point entirely.
quote:
I don't see a line between science and philosophy. Anything concerning reality (and its possible absence as in this case) is the province of science (and philosophy).
But you're the one who said that we should look to science rather than philosophy.
quote:
Is your idea of good philosophy sticking things into nothing?
No, that's why I kept on telling you that you shouldn't be doing it.
quote:
Non-existence can't be a reality, not anywhere, and not for a split second.
Only if you choose definitions to make it self-contradictory, which is really only a trivial semantic game.
quote:
BTW, if someone describes another "something" reality, "a world where there's a golden ocean stretching to near infinity" for example, and asks why that doesn't exist rather than this one, we wouldn't be able to answer the question, and you'd presumably end up with "brute fact".
ONLY if it was taken to the lowest possible level of explanation, and maybe not even then. If you think otherwise, then you really, really, fail to understand my position. Appealing to brute fact is the last resort, and I argue that in the end we will be FORCED into it to explain the most basic level of reality,because there is no viable alternative.
quote:
Do you understand why I see people making up alternatives to this world, and then asking why they're not there as rather silly?
Not really. Is science silly ? Because science is all about finding out why things are this way and not some other. Why does taxonomy lead us to classify life as a nested tree, rather than some other structure? Why do we find so many unique species on remote islands rather than the same species found in similar environments elsewhere ? Why does the fossil record show dramatic changes in the fauna and flora of this planet rather than the same species we find today ? That's the thinking that lead Darwin and Wallace to evolution. Do you find that silly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 5:22 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 6:58 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 259 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 7:45 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 258 of 366 (628015)
08-06-2011 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by PaulK
08-06-2011 6:23 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
The choice of definitions should be about understanding the question as it was meant, not going off into confusing philosophy that misses the point entirely.
Why not state the question as you think it was meant? When I asked this before, you preferred to leave it as it is. Fine. Then it will be taken as written, because no-one can mind read PaulK, and tell what he thinks it means.
PaulK writes:
But you're the one who said that we should look to science rather than philosophy.
That doesn't forbid philosophers from following along behind and doing whatever it is they usually do, does it?
PaulK writes:
Not really. Is science silly
No. Seriously asking why Kansas exists rather than Oz is, though. I was talking about people fantasizing and expecting to be taken seriously. Note my comment that you're probably taking the O.P. question as a serious philosophical one, and that that's fine. I was thinking of when creationists ask such things, without realising what they're really doing.
You've probably heard "scientists believe that something came from nothing". The "nothing" comes from their mythology, and is their requirement, not that of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 6:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 7:53 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 259 of 366 (628018)
08-06-2011 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by PaulK
08-06-2011 6:23 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
No, that's why I kept on telling you that you shouldn't be doing it.[sticking things into nothing]
As I'm the one with the more comprehensive definition of "things", could you explain how I'm doing that?
Is the following anywhere near what you have in mind for the meaning of the question?
Is existence inevitable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 6:23 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 260 of 366 (628019)
08-06-2011 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by bluegenes
08-06-2011 6:58 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
Why not state the question as you think it was meant? When I asked this before, you preferred to leave it as it is. Fine. Then it will be taken as written, because no-one can mind read PaulK, and tell what he thinks it means.
If you did, I missed it, although I think the intent is obvious. The question is about the existence of concrete entities, about the ultimate explanation of why such things exist. As I remember it, the question was asked by a scientist originally, and I certainly don't think it was about the complex and confused question of the existence of abstract entities. Which science is never going to answer, anyway.
quote:
That doesn't forbid philosophers from following along behind and doing whatever it is they usually do, does it?
You could at least try to be consistent. If the problem is only going to be answered by science, then taking a purely philosophical approach and asking purely philosophical questions, outside of science is not going to be much help.
quote:
No. Seriously asking why Kansas exists rather than Oz is, though. I was talking about people fantasizing and expecting to be taken seriously. Note my comment that you're probably taking the O.P. question as a serious philosophical one, and that that's fine. I was thinking of when creationists ask such things, without realising what they're really doing.
Then really, it's a strawman. There really is a serious question here, not a fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 6:58 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 8:20 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 262 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 11:23 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 261 of 366 (628020)
08-06-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by PaulK
08-06-2011 7:53 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
The question is about the existence of concrete entities, about the ultimate explanation of why such things exist.
Why do concrete things exist?
So you disagree with Adequate's dismissal of god as an answer on the basis that he's something (given that some gods have purely abstract descriptions)?
And what point is there in trying to suggest that abstract entities can somehow exist in the absence of concrete entities anyway?
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 4:19 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 262 of 366 (628042)
08-06-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by PaulK
08-06-2011 7:53 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
If you did, I missed it, although I think the intent is obvious.
PaulK writes:
Message 182 I'd say that "why existence?" is worse because it is even harder to understand. "Why do things exist?" is better than that. There are two things that tilt me in favour of the original formulation. Firstly, it is explicit about the possibility of nothingness, secondly it is already well-known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 4:20 PM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 263 of 366 (628088)
08-06-2011 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by bluegenes
08-06-2011 8:20 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
So you disagree with Adequate's dismissal of god as an answer on the basis that he's something (given that some gods have purely abstract descriptions)?
No. Abstract entities can't cause anything, therefore it would be silly to propose an abstract entity as an explanation of why anything exists. And to be perfectly honest in my view anyone who describes an abstract entity as God is an atheist trying not to admit to it.
quote:
And what point is there in trying to suggest that abstract entities can somehow exist in the absence of concrete entities anyway?
Maybe you should answer that one yourself, since it seems to be central to your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 8:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 5:58 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 264 of 366 (628089)
08-06-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by bluegenes
08-06-2011 11:23 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
So I did answer the question you actually asked. So why the unnecessary nastiness over it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 11:23 AM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 265 of 366 (628104)
08-06-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by PaulK
08-06-2011 4:19 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
bluegenes writes:
And what point is there in trying to suggest that abstract entities can somehow exist in the absence of concrete entities anyway?
Maybe you should answer that one yourself, since it seems to be central to your argument.
??? It's central to your argument. That's why you've gone to great lengths to separate the concrete from the abstract. You're the one who's supporting the possible existence of a state of nothingness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 4:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 7:15 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 266 of 366 (628109)
08-06-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by bluegenes
08-06-2011 5:58 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
??? It's central to your argument. That's why you've gone to great lengths to separate the concrete from the abstract. You're the one who's supporting the possible existence of a state of nothingness.
You are really, really wrong here. If abstract entities couldn't exist without concrete entities I wouldn't HAVE to make the distinction! The absence of concrete entities would entail the non-existence of abstracts, too. You're the one appealing to abstracts like "reality", "states" or "existence"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2011 5:58 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 08-07-2011 10:32 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 267 of 366 (628180)
08-07-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by PaulK
08-06-2011 7:15 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
You are really, really wrong here. If abstract entities couldn't exist without concrete entities I wouldn't HAVE to make the distinction! The absence of concrete entities would entail the non-existence of abstracts, too. You're the one appealing to abstracts like "reality", "states" or "existence"
We're both accusing each other of the same thing, and I'll explain why. You, and the O.P. question, are inadvertently plying "nothing" with abstracts. If you left it alone, as its non-existent self, a mere negative abstract concept in our minds, it would be happy. But when you suggest it as an alternative to this reality, you turn it into something. An alternative is something, not nothing.
Nothing doesn't exist. It couldn't exist. That's its definition. If people use phrases like "state of nothingness" they are giving poor nothing something to live up to, and it has to become a state, which is something, and belongs with your concrete things.
You are trying to suggest that a non-reality could become a reality.
In past centuries, when the question was asked, people would probably have perceived nothing as a huge void, like space-time empty of everything they could identify as real. That would actually have been what we could call minimal something, or historical nothing in memory of them.
Their question, why is there something rather than nothing, in the way that they might have perceived it, can actually be pretty well answered now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2011 7:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2011 11:51 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 268 of 366 (628186)
08-07-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by bluegenes
08-07-2011 10:32 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
We're both accusing each other of the same thing, and I'll explain why. You, and the O.P. question, are inadvertently plying "nothing" with abstracts. If you left it alone, as its non-existent self, a mere negative abstract concept in our minds, it would be happy. But when you suggest it as an alternative to this reality, you turn it into something. An alternative is something, not nothing.
But there's no reason why there at all. You just do it again and try to claim that I'm doing it. Remember that my understanding of the question just ignores the question of abstracts, and I have given very good reasons for doing just that. That is why the existence of abstracts isn't relevant to my position but it is VERY relevant to yours - you drag up all these abstracta just so that you can say that nothing is something.
quote:
Nothing doesn't exist. It couldn't exist. That's its definition. If people use phrases like "state of nothingness" they are giving poor nothing something to live up to, and it has to become a state, which is something, and belongs with your concrete things.
States are abstract, not concrete, so there you just have it again. All you are doing is appealing to the existence of abstractions to try to deny the possibility of nothingness. But it doesn't help you because you are misunderstanding the question.
Look back to the definition of "thing" I provided earlier - you will see that your "state" does not come close to fitting it at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 08-07-2011 10:32 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by bluegenes, posted 08-07-2011 1:00 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 269 of 366 (628195)
08-07-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by PaulK
08-07-2011 11:51 AM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
PaulK writes:
But there's no reason why there at all. You just do it again and try to claim that I'm doing it. Remember that my understanding of the question just ignores the question of abstracts, and I have given very good reasons for doing just that. That is why the existence of abstracts isn't relevant to my position but it is VERY relevant to yours - you drag up all these abstracta just so that you can say that nothing is something.
That's because I include all things in my something. You chose your definition after I made my point, not before. Like GDR at the beginning of the thread, when he wanted the abstracts he attributed to his god (intelligence etc.) exempted. But they are things, and could not be used to explain the existence of something.
PaulK writes:
States are abstract, not concrete, so there you just have it again. All you are doing is appealing to the existence of abstractions to try to deny the possibility of nothingness. But it doesn't help you because you are misunderstanding the question.
I understand both the question and your version of it, except for one question. Are space, time, and virtual particles "things" for you. Are they concrete?
PaulK writes:
Look back to the definition of "thing" I provided earlier - you will see that your "state" does not come close to fitting it at all.
I know that. I know you've excluded abstract things. But that doesn't make it the standard of the thread, does it? And it doesn't make it any easier for "nothing" to become an alternative reality whether you want alternative realities labeled as things or not, they're still something.
But the reason I asked you about the three things above is that, if you don't consider them things, then you've got the concrete things coming from what you might want to call "nothing" in the way that Krauss described above, and you've got your answer in the nature of quantum mechanics.
But for the O.P., that's no good, because we would be evoking something, however minimal.
Our ancestors would have been impressed, though, because it gets everything they would have considered concrete from apparent invisible nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2011 11:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2011 1:28 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 270 of 366 (628198)
08-07-2011 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by bluegenes
08-07-2011 1:00 PM


Re: Nothing doesn't have states; it is a state.
quote:
That's because I include all things in my something. You chose your definition after I made my point, not before. Like GDR at the beginning of the thread, when he wanted the abstracts he attributed to his god (intelligence etc.) exempted. But they are things, and could not be used to explain the existence of something.
That's somewhat exaggerating. You don't really know what was going on in my thinking before I replied to you. But again, your chosen definitions cause problems, making the question incoherent, while my understanding avoids those problems and leaves us with an interesting and relevant question, that a scientist might appreciate.
quote:
I understand both the question and your version of it, except for one question. Are space, time, and virtual particles "things" for you. Are they concrete?
IMHO the idea of spacetime as a concrete thing is one of the areas where science has outpaced philosophy that Cavediver referred to. Perhaps the prime example. Virtual particles, while they exist, are particles and thus clearly concrete.
quote:
I know that. I know you've excluded abstract things. But that doesn't make it the standard of the thread, does it?
But it does show that you are the one who keeps invoking abstracta, which was the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by bluegenes, posted 08-07-2011 1:00 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by bluegenes, posted 08-07-2011 2:25 PM 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