Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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 312 of 366 (629655)
08-19-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by PaulK
08-19-2011 4:38 AM


Re: Creating absolute nothingness/interesting angle on the O.P. question.
PaulK writes:
I don't remember Grunbaum saying anything THAT wrong. It's not true of any answer based on logical necessity or brute fact.
Why is it a brute fact that there is something rather than nothing?
How can "x" be regarded as necessary if there could be nothing?
PaulK writes:
You haven't offered any valid reason to think it that important - it's implicit in the question, which is asking why a counterfactual is not the case.
But, unlike "why is there land right here, rather than sea?" the counterfactual is something we have no knowledge of. The concept of "absolute nothingness" is invented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2011 4:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2011 5:24 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 314 of 366 (629658)
08-19-2011 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by PaulK
08-19-2011 5:24 AM


Re: Creating absolute nothingness/interesting angle on the O.P. question.
PaulK writes:
Now THAT is an invalid question. There is no reason why a brute fact is true, it just is.
Yet the declaration of brute fact fails to eliminate the possibility of "nothingness", so the question can be applied. It recognises the fact that there is something, but asks why "nothingness" couldn't have been the case instead.
PaulK writes:
And that is even worse. If it is necessary that something exist then there cannot be nothing. The question is already answered -unless you are the one assuming the possibility of nothing, despite the answer denying it.
"Necessity" could only be demonstrated in the context of "something world".
I think you fail to see that the question says; "Why isn't there reality "y" rather than reality "x". How is it possible to demonstrate that "x" is "necessary" from inside it? How could you demonstrate that "y" couldn't have been?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2011 5:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2011 6:52 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 316 of 366 (630032)
08-22-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by PaulK
08-19-2011 6:52 AM


Another week; and yet more of nothing.
PaulK writes:
However, the declaration of brute fact, as you put it, has already answered that question. There is no reason, and if you want to argue that there MUST you'll be arguing against yourself and Grunbaum.
"There is no reason" is just another way of saying that the question (O.P. version) is unanswerable. No thing can be evoked to answer it, unlike the "contingent things" version, which can accept a theoretical necessary being.
Grnbaum isn't proposing that the question can be properly answered. He's questioning the question. He's claiming that it poses a "pseudo problem". (That's both versions of the question).
For analogy: "Why are there birds rather than angels?"
That's unanswerable, and suggests an alternative reality with angels flying around instead of birds. When we're seriously inquiring into the nature and origin of "birds", we don't need such a question.
A much better "ultimate question" might be something like:
"What exactly is the universe and why is it as it is?" That's unanswerable at the moment, and may always be, but at least we can explore it and improve on existing explanations
Do we really need to ask: "why does this reality exist rather than one of our fantasies?"
PaulK writes:
bluegenes writes:
"Necessity" could only be demonstrated in the context of "something world".
False. Since we are talking about logical necessity we CAN'T rely on the assumption of something existing without begging the question.
Well, exactly. That's another way of saying the same thing. That's why Leibniz refines the question into "why are there contingent things rather than no contingent things".
PaulK writes:
bluegenes writes:
I think you fail to see that the question says; "Why isn't there reality "y" rather than reality "x". How is it possible to demonstrate that "x" is "necessary" from inside it? How could you demonstrate that "y" couldn't have been?
If it is possible to demonstrate logical necessity (and remember that I argue it is not ) it is sufficient to show that "reality y" is logically inconsistent as Dr. A pointed out back in the OP.
Absolute nothingness (the "null world" of the O.P. version) forbids logical inconsistency, just as it forbids anything else (including "necessity").
Whether or not the O.P. version has built in unanswerability (I think it does - unless taken completely literally as I did earlier in the thread), Grnbaum's "pseudo-problem" point applies to both versions.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo - wrong word!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2011 6:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 5:24 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 321 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2011 8:15 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 318 of 366 (630049)
08-22-2011 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 5:24 AM


Re: Another week; and yet more of nothing.
IamJoseph writes:
A good way to view this is that something and nothing are post-universe duality counterparts, whereby one part cannot exist without the other part. There is no something or nothing pre-universe. 'THING' is a corporeal entity and limited to this finite realm.
Ah! Right. That's that sorted, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 5:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 7:01 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 320 of 366 (630057)
08-22-2011 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 7:01 AM


Re: Another week; and yet more of nothing.
IamJoseph writes:
But if you want to go complicated, I'll take you on.
You could start by explaining what "pre-universe" means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 7:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 8:27 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 323 of 366 (630090)
08-22-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by PaulK
08-22-2011 8:15 AM


Re: Another week; and yet more of nothing.
PaulK writes:
Giving an answer rather disproves the claim that the question is unanswerable. Aside from that you're really only repeating points that I've already made.
An unsupported claim ("there's no reason") isn't an answer to the question "why is it a fact that there's something rather than nothing".
The O.P. version of the question cannot be answered by anything (any-thing).
PaulK writes:
Only in the same sense as "you are dead wrong and here's proof" is saying the same thing as "you're right"
That relies on your dubious reading of what I said, which was that "necessity could only be demonstrated in the context of the something world", which, to me, implies pretty much this:
PaulK writes:
Since we are talking about logical necessity we CAN'T rely on the assumption of something existing without begging the question.
In other words, the O.P. version cannot be answered by "necessity", which requires a necessary thing(s).
PaulK writes:
Only given both your dubious reading of the question and the assumption that abstracts exist.
I think we both assume that abstracts don't exist in the absence of something concrete. "Necessity", therefore, cannot apply in the "null world" of the O.P. question, although it can in Leibniz's modified version.
PaulK writes:
Your assertion that the question is unanswerable has been disproven, and Grunbaum's point seems limited to attempts to argue that some necessary entity must exist.
I missed the "disproof". Grnbaum is really questioning the validity of suggesting that angels might have been there rather than birds merely because we can perceive such a state of affairs as logically possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2011 8:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2011 1:43 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 324 of 366 (630092)
08-22-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 8:27 AM


Re: Another week; and yet more of nothing.
IamJoseph writes:
Prior to this finite universe emerging.
How can anything be "prior" to time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 8:27 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 7:09 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 330 of 366 (630208)
08-23-2011 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by PaulK
08-22-2011 1:43 PM


Unanswerability.
PK writes:
In which case I have to ask whether you are being stupid or just trolling. In fact your version of the "nothing world" IS logically impossible from your own arguments. That is one of the reasons I regard your reading as wrong.
My reading is common. And it doesn't make the non-existence of all things impossible.
PaulK writes:
bluegenes writes:
In other words, the O.P. version cannot be answered by "necessity", which requires a necessary thing(s).
Do you really fail to understand the difference between am argument and an answer ? Or the difference between an assumption and a supported conclusion ? Proposing necessity as a possible answer is not an argument and so can't beg the question. A successful argument that something necessarily existed would make that a conclusion not an assumption.
I'm pointing out that the question precludes possible answers. "Something" answers invariably assume the something world.
You cannot evoke something, any something, to answer the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
That's the point that Adequate makes, correctly IMO, in the O.P.
The problem with the question is that it asks for something, (the reason that something exists rather than nothing), making it self-defeating. Whatever something could possibly be given as the answer would itself be subject to the question.
When I describe the question as unanswerable, I mean that we cannot provide what it asks for (the reason why there's something rather than nothing). When you give the opinion that there is no reason, you have not answered the question in this sense. Indeed, you've said "there isn't a reason, and therefore no answer".
Here's the O.P. again, to save us clicking back.
Dr Adequate in the O.P. writes:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Some initial thoughts:
* God would not constitute an explanation, since God counts as something.
* Indeed, if anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for.
* This last consideration makes the question look unanswerable. To explain my thinking, consider that a question beginning "Why ..." invites an answer describing some thing which is an antecedent cause, or at least something with a sort of family resemblance to an antecedent cause.
* Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't.
My own opinion is that the question is unanswerable, and indeed can only be asked because the English language allows us to talk nonsense. This view does not satisfy me in the slightest, but as I am in the habit of saying, being hungry does not prove that we have bread.
Why do you disagree with the conclusion that the question is unanswerable (not to mention the implication that the question is nonsense)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by PaulK, posted 08-22-2011 1:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 1:30 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 331 of 366 (630209)
08-23-2011 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 7:09 PM


Re: Another week; and yet more of nothing.
IamJoseph writes:
Time, like space, and anything contained in this uni, is post-uni. A finite cannot contain an infinite component.
So why do you use the expression "pre-universe" and describe it as being "prior" to the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 7:09 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 1:21 AM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 334 of 366 (630214)
08-23-2011 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by PaulK
08-23-2011 1:30 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
PaulK writes:
An objection which only rules out the answers I have offered if you assume that the "nothing world" is basic and the "something world" must arise from it. Do you make that assumption ? It is not in the question.
That assumption is certainly not necessary. I'm pointing out that you cannot assume "somethingness" in order to answer the question "why is there somethingness rather than nothingness?".
Whatever we present as "necessary", quantum fluctuations, god, or whatever, would be subject to the question.
As in: Why are there quantum fluctuations rather than nothing?
PaulK writes:
THe only answers ruled out are those that rely on some prior "something....
Here, you seem to agree.
PaulK writes:
Neither logical necessity or brute facts rely on any prior something, thus they are legitimate answers. Even asserting that there is no reason is an answer to the question.
This just means that you are using "answerability" in a different way than I am (and the O.P. is). But let's try it, anyway.
"Why is there a logical necessity for something, rather than nothing?"
"Why is it a fact without reason that there is something rather than nothing?"
In your sense, the reply "the question is unanswerable" could itself be regarded as an answer.
PaulK writes:
Because I have shown both statements to be incorrect.
If you want to show the points made in the O.P. to be incorrect, shouldn't you do so using Adequate's definition of "answerable"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 1:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 2:47 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 336 of 366 (630218)
08-23-2011 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by PaulK
08-23-2011 2:47 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
Paulk writes:
I use answerability to mean that the question can be answered. How do you use it ?
Do you? "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asks for the reason that there is something rather than nothing. Do you agree?
"There is no reason" is a reply, but it does not provide the questioner with the answer he has asked for. It merely states a view that the question is invalid. And you're the one who keeps insisting that it is an important question!
PaulK writes:
Whoever said that there are no stupid questions should see that one. Now THERE is a nonsense question.
If a "logical necessity" is something, then the question applies to it. If a "logical necessity" is not something, then it can't exist.
PaulK writes:
bluegenes writes:
"Why is it a fact without reason that there is something rather than nothing?"
And there's another one.
Can you answer it? Do you mean it's unanswerable? Your "brute fact" is something that is subject to the O.P. question, just like everything else.
PK writes:
If you are going to appeal to odd definitions of "answerable" then maybe you should produce them ?
I'm trying to explain to you why many philosophers have dismissed the O.P. question as unanswerable. Do you think that I'm the only person who expects the answer to a question to match what it's asking for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 2:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 8:55 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 340 of 366 (630231)
08-23-2011 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by IamJoseph
08-23-2011 5:08 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Re Why is there something rather than nothing?
The reason I say there is no alternative to creationism [a universe maker for a unuverse] is thus:...
Joe, if your god isn't something, he doesn't exist.
Think again: Why is there something rather than nothing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 5:08 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 6:20 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 342 of 366 (630240)
08-23-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by IamJoseph
08-23-2011 6:20 AM


He's a real nowhere creator in his nowhere land doing nothing
IamJoseph writes:
I find the arguements against a universe maker deficient, both scientifically and from a sound premise; the path of correct thought definitely leans on the creator factor.
Is this the creator who doesn't exist in a non-existent "pre-universe" which isn't "prior" to anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 6:20 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 8:53 AM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 355 of 366 (630323)
08-24-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by PaulK
08-23-2011 8:55 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
PaulK writes:
Well, you are failing miserably.
Indeed, I'm failing to convince the likes of you and IamJoseph that the O.P. question cannot be answered by anything (any-thing). I'm not using the word "answer" in the sense of "reply". No-one would describe anything as "unanswerable" in that sense, because all questions can be replied to. Therefore, it should have been obvious to you that the O.P. is using "unanswerable" in a sense that actually means something.
I'm off travelling for a couple of days, and I suspect that IaJ's presence will take the topic rapidly up to the 500 post mark before I'm back. It's amazing how much mileage we can get out of the subject of "nothing" when we try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 8:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2011 1:38 AM bluegenes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024